1920-03-29

ACT RESPECTING COPYRIGHT.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 37 respecting copyright.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: This Bill is intended to bring the Copyright Law of Canada into conformity with the Berne Con-

vention. It establishes a uniform period of copyright protection, and also extends copyright protection to records, perforated rolls, cinematograph films, and so forth, and is intended to secure Canadian authors full copyright protection from all parts of His Majesty's Dominions as well as in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) the House returned to the order of motions.
Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Honourable the Secretary of State (Hon. Mr. Sifton) I desire to lay on the Table a return to an order of the House dated March 18, 1920, calling for copy of representations, complaints, and correspondence, with reference to the classification of the Civil Service.



SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT -PENSIONS COMMITTEE.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council): With the consent of the House I move that the following members be added to the Committee on Pensions: Messrs. Calder, Chisholm, Cooper, Copp, Edwards, McGregor, McLean (Royal), Morphy, Ross, Tweedie, White; and that the committee be authorized to continue the inquiries instituted by the committee on civil re-establishment last session into such matters as may call for further investigation, and to report its recommendations to the. House.
The work of the Pensions Committee this year, as I pointed out in moving for the committee, will not be nearly so onerous as that of last year, nor would a committee on re-establishment have the onerous work that the committee had last year, in view of the extent and character of the investigation carried on by that committee. Furthermore, a number of the members of the House were on both committees, and it is thought that it would not meet with the convenience of the members to have 'two committees at work which might well be centred in one committee. I am therefore moving to add to the Pensions Committee the names of all the members of the Reestablishment Committee who are not already on the Pensions Committee, and to give the Pensions Committee the power to continue any investigations that may be found necessary.
Motion agreed to.
[Fir George Foster.]

George Green Foster: That this House adjourn on Thursday, the first April next, at 6 p.m., and that when the House so adjourns it stand adjourned until Tuesday, the sixth April next.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Speaker, may I lequest the right hon. the leader of the House to amend his motion so that the adjournment may commence on Wednesday evening. Thursday is a holiday of great importance to us who belong to the religious minority in this House, and I really think that it would be only proper, in view of that fact, that the adjournment should start from Wednesday night.


Mr. BUREAU:: There is no sitting on
Wednesday night either.


George Green Foster: I do not desire to encroach on the sacred holiday privileges of my hon. friends. At the same time, however, the object was to devote as much time >as we possibly could to the business of the House. It is not at all difficult for those hon. membeais who reside in proximity to the seat of Government to take holidays, because they can go home or go to their friends and enjoy themselves. But those who come from a distance and have to remain here have that much longer time on their hands, and unless my hon. friend strongly presses hie suggestion I think it would be the opinion of the House that we should pursue our business, as moderately as possible, of course, and with as good demeanour als should befit the day. Thereby we should save that much time.


Ernest Lapointe: I may say that I have been a member of this House for over sixteen years, and it has always been the custom to have the Easter adjournment from Wednesday night. I really do not see why there should be a change this year.


George Green Foster: I had not paid any particular attention to the matter, but as my hon. friend assures me that the custom is as he states, perhaps it would be rather out of place to break it on this occasion. Under the circumstances I have no objection to amending the motion in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. member.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion as amended now reads:
That this House adjourn on Wednesday, the thirty-first day of March, at 6 p.m.. and that

when the House so adjourns It stands adjourned until Tuesday, the sixth day of April next.
Motion as amended agreed to.



HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIALS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: Before the Orders of the Day are called, may I say that some days ago I asked for the plan of organization respecting the staff of this House, and your honour, in answer, very kindly consented to lay it upon the Table to-day. May I ask you, instead of laying it on the Table to-day, to defer it until Monday or Tuesday in order that I may have an opportunity of further consideration with the hon. members of the House as to the real needs and necessities of the occasion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The suggestion of the hon. member is entirely agreeable.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS-INCOMPLETE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
['I will ask my hon. friend to repeat the question when the Minister of Marine is in the House.']
Mr. GEORGE PARENT (Quebec West):: I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. the acting leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) to a question I asked a week ago and which was asked to stand as a return. I understand it is the privilege of the Government to deal with such questions as they like, especially when the answers call for a large amount of work. It is quite obvious that the particular question I refer to does not involve any great amount of work in the preparation of the information, and I would like to know when I may expect an answer to the question.


George Green Foster: What was the subject matter?


Georges Parent: The question was as follows:
1.	What was the total amount of the gross consolidated debt of Canada on the 28th of February, 1920?
2.	What was the total amount of the net consolidated debt of Canada on the same date?
3.	What was the total amount of the assets of the consolidated debt of Canada on the said date?
4.	What was the total amount of the yearly' interest payable on the gross consolidated debt of Canada on the said date?
5.	What was the total amount of yearly Interest or revenue received or collected by Canada in respect to the property or securities constituting the assets of the public debt?
6.	What was the total amount of the floating debt of Canada on the 28th of February, 1920?
7.	What was the total amount of yearly Interest payable on the floating debt of Canada on the said date?
And so on. The Department of Finance is surely in a position to answer every one of these questions right off.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I do not know that the delay will be very long before the return is made. There are a great many questions being put and a great many returns have to be made. I do not know whether this is out of its turn, but it will not be very long delayed.
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Carleton, N.B.):: I would call to the attention of the Government the answer given to a question on the Order Paper in regard to the stock of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. There were six questions-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Questions 5 and 6 have been answered, but the answers to questions from 1 to 4 were omitted. I would also desire to point out that the answers to numbers 5 and 6 are not in accordance with the questions. I asked in question 5:
Has any member of the present Government ever held any of the stock of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, either personally or by proxy through any other person?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member should put that question either on a motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply or when the House is in Committee of Supply. When, on the Orders of the Day, questions are answered, a member must accept without discussion the answer of the Government as it stands.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There are four questions not answered.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They may have stood as an order for a return. Does the hon. member mean that they do not appear in the list of questions as having been answered?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The questions appear but the answers do not. The answers to questions 5 and 6 are in Hansard, and I want to call your attention to the fact that the answers given are not in accordance with the questions,


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That point is one which the hon. member would have to take up with the Government on a motion to go into Supply, or when the House is in Supply, or at some other stage. On the Orders of the Day he must accept such answers as the Government give, but he has his remedy on the two occasions to which I have particularly referred.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would like an explanation as to why there is no answer to the first four questions.


George Green Foster: If Mr. Speaker will allow me I will tell my hon. friend why. The first four question were allowed to stand as an order for a return and the return is to be brought down for my hon. friend. The other two questions were answered offhand and therefore it was not necessary to reserve them for any further examination. The answers will come all right.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Thank you.



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. G. POWER' (Quebec South): I desire to draw the attention of the Government to a despatch in the Montreal Daily Star of Thursday, March 25, entitled " Big Changes at Quebec Harbour.'' It is as follows:	**>
The amalgamation of both the local agency of the Marine and Fisheries of Canada and the Quebec Harbour Commission is reported today in semi-official circles.
I do not wish to read the whole article.
The head of the two combined bodies would be Sir David Watson, it is rumoured. The ultimate end to be attained by this reorganization would be a curtailment of expenses in the administration of these two branches of the public service.
I wish to be informed by the Government whether or not there is any truth in this rumour.
George Green Foster: I will ask my hon. friend to repeat the question when the Minister of Marine is in the House.



SUPPLY-INTERIM VOTE.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $62,900,986.09, being one-sixth of the amount of each item set forth in the Main Estimates for the year ending March 31. 1921. laid on the table of the House on the 22nd instant, be granted to His Majesty for the year ending March 31. 1921.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask if it is one-sixth of the whole Estimates?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: It is understood that we are consenting to one-sixth of the total appropriation but we reserve our right to criticise every individual item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Absolutely so.


Jacques Bureau: But we cannot move to throw out any item if we vote one-sixth of it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: We have already voted
one-sixth of it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am told that this is the ordinary way of arriving at it.


Jacques Bureau: During the war.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The whole object is to get something with which to carry on the public service. The hon. member is not committing himself upon any item that he may wish to discuss.


Mr. FIELDING:: While the practice is
to take one-sixth of the whole I would suggest that the power should only be used in urgent cases, such as to pay the Civil 'Service and such like matters-. Of course, in regard to debatable items, we cannot withdraw the vote for the one sixth, but I do not anticipate any trouble. The power is generally used to pay for urgent matters such as the Civil Service and I take it that the Government will apply it in that spirit and not apply it to other items which can just as well wait.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Does this include one-sixth of the $20,000,000 that we were asked to vote for government ships two or three days ago?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It includes one-sixth of everything but the effect is that the hon. member or any other hon. member will not be bound in any way with regard to any particular vote.


Jacques Bureau: We are bound by the
fact that we have voted one-sixth.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but the
vote is not a vote of endorsation in so far as any particular item is concerned. As I understand it it is the ordinary vote which enables public business to be carried on.


Mr. CANNON:: I have great confidence in the minister's explanation but on the other hand I very often clash with the chairman of the committee and I would like to have his interpretation of the rule.


The CHAIRMAN:: The resolution which is now before the House provides for a vote of one-sixth of the entire Estimates which were laid on the Table on the 22nd of March. There is absolutely no doubt that this vote gives the Government the power to expend

one-sixth of every item in the Estimates if it desires to exercise that right. This is the customary blanket vote, but every item in the Estimates must once more come before this Committee in order that the other five-sixths be approved. Rule 17c remains in force the same as though this resolution were not adopted, and hon. members will have the absolute right to fully discuss any item when it comes before this Committee as a separate resolution.


Lucien Cannon: Suppose an hon. member, when the House is in Committee later on in the session, should move that an item be struck out altogether?


Georges Henri Boivin: 
Jacques Bureau: Heretofore it has always been customary to grant one-sixth of the amount required for the salaries of the civil servants and other public employees who are dependent upon those salaries for the maintenance of themselves and families, but how can we vote one-sixth of the sums necessary for the payment of contracts that we know nothing about? If we make the vote we are committed to the principle and we cannot escape from it. If we admit the principle that the 'Government has the right to spend one-sixth of the sum of $1,000,000 involved in the contract, it would be ridiculous for us to intervene later and say that the remaining five-sixths should not be spent. I cannot then move to strike the item out because I have already acquiesced in the principle of the vote.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is, I think, unduly exercised over this matter.


Jacques Bureau: I am not exercised at all.


George Green Foster: It has been the practice ever since I have been in Parliament that when the end of the fiscal year draws near the Government shall secure the sums of money necessary in order to carry on the business of the country. The votes for this purpose have always been 48J
granted, and cheerfully granted. I am not sure that my hon. friend himself has not passed through two or three crises like the present in past years.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, fortunately I did pass through them.


George Green Foster: It has always
been considered proper to grant the votes and no opposition has been made to that course.


Jacques Bureau: It is a wrong principle to ask us to vote fifty or one hundred million ~ dollars out of perhaps a total of $300,000,000, when there is absolutely no explanation of the proposed expenditure. That is what I object to. A vote for the salaries of civil servants is something we are familiar with, something that we know is necessary. But when you ask us to vote en bloc large amounts for other things that we know absolutely nothing about, and have had no opportunity to look into, that is an entirely different matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to assure the hon. gentleman that the motion which has been moved is the customary motion, and it was furnished to me by officers of the House. So far as I have been able to learn, the course which is now proposed, is the one which has always been followed. We must remember that salaries and other commitments have to be provided for, business must be carried on, obligations must be fulfilled, and interest must be met. However, I would meet the views of my hon. friend absolutely to the fullest extent that we can. For example, I do not think that the present vote of one-sixth would be any authority to the Government to undertake new obligations in the meantime. That, I think, is the only point about which my hon. friend is very much concerned.


Jacques Bureau: I am not so much concerned except that I think that the principle which is proposed here is wrong, and I desire to protest against it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have looked up Hansard to ascertain the form in which previous requests have been made and the nature of the replies by the Opposition to those requests. I observe that in each case the Opposition has taken care to state that while granting one.-sixth of the total appropriation it was to be distinctly understood they were not thereby sanctioning any individual item, but reserved the right to pass upon every item appearing in the Estimates. It is in that spirit that we are pre-

pared to meet the Government at the present time. That is, the understanding shall be that while voting one-sixth of the total appropriation necessary to enable the business of the country to be carried on until such time as the Estimates may be passed, we are in no wise prejudicing the right of any hon. member to discuss any individual item on its merits.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My understanding agrees absolutely with that of my hon. friend.


William Stevens Fielding: If it is desired to get at the root of the trouble the Government must be reminded that they should not have allowed so much time to elapse before seeking Supply. This House should have been called at a much earlier period. In the olden times when the fiscal year terminated on the 30th of June Parliament met in January or February. However it was thought that that time was too late and for business convenience it was deemed desirable that the session should begin earlier and end earlier. Accordingly the fiscal year was changed so as to terminate on March 31. Parliament was then summoned to meet in November or December and in the intervening time from the 31st of March, it was considered that ample opportunity was afforded to prepare the necessary public documents for the proper despatch of business. The present Government, however, for reasons of their own, have allowed months to pass without taking action. Now they find themselves at the end of the fiscal year with no money voted. The explanation of this trouble is that they should have called Parliament several months ago.


George Green Foster: That should have been done on numerous other occasions by my hon. friends on the other side.


William Stevens Fielding: Quite possibly, but let us take each case in its turn. I would like to know what reason the Government can give, in view of the fact that we changed the fiscal year in order to have an early meeting of Parliament, why Parliament was not summoned before the 26th of February.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I invite the attention of the Government to the point as to how an item that has once been dealt with should be considered when it comes up a second time. Are we not debarred from taking action in the future with respect to an item which has been already considered?
[Mr Mackenzie King.]
It should be distinctly understood that although we are passing one-sixth of every item in the Estimates on the present occasion we shall not be precluded from discussing such items when they again come before the House for consideration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I entirely agree with my hon. friend.
Resolution reported, read a first and second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
['It is in printed form as it has been received from the secretary of the League of Nations. I think that a certain number of copies of the convention were printed after the Conference, but we have not copies available for distribution among the members of the House. I shall be glad to move that these recommendations be printed for distribution among members.']
Henry Lumley Drayton: Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to His Maiesty on account of certain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1921, the sum of $62,900,986.09 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
-Sir HENRY DRAYTON thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 36 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1921.
Motion agreed to, Bill read a first and second time considered in committee and reported without amendment.
['Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to His Maiesty on account of certain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1921, the sum of $62,900,986.09 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.']
Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remark that this Bill is not yet distributed. I do not desire to raise objection now, but if such proceedings are repeated I would ask the Government to see in future that the Bill is distributed beforehand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.
Bill read the third time and passed.



[Stage Direction]
Resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) for the second reading of Bill No. 12, respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the Electoral Franchise.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the only purpose I have in intervening in the debate is to refer to a phase of it that developed

yesterday afternoon and evening with regard to a certain section of the Bill. It is a phase that ordinarily might well he left to discussion in committee, as it really concerns a particular item of the measure. The only reason that I desire to speak upon it now is that the Acting Solicitor General, who has charge of the measure in the House, has already spoken and, consequently, cannot address the House a second time.
Certain hon. members on both sides of the House called attention yesterday to what appears to be the effect of a reading together of the Naturalization Act as passed a year ago and section 29 of this Bill. The Naturalization Act passed in the -first session of 1919 was an Act to determine Canadian naturalization in such a manner that a person naturalized in Canada would thereby become naturalized for all purposes of the British Empire, that wherever he might be he would be deemed a British subject. The Act as then passed was drawn and enacted in conformity with British legislation, part 2 of which was submitted to and adopted, I believe, by all of the Dominions of the Empire, thereby having the effect of establishing what might be termed Empire Naturalization.
By the terms of section 8 of that Act it was provided that no subject of a then enemy state could obtain naturalization in Canada until a period of ten years had elapsed after the expiration of the war. There were three exceptions to that general provision. The disabling clause contained in sub-subsection (b) of subsection 4 of that section was made not to apply to: First, those who though born in an enemy country were of a race or community known to be opposed to the enemy governments; secondly, those who had taken part in the war on behalf of the Allies; and, thirdly, those who, though enemy subjects, were British born, having thereafter become naturalized in enemy states. Those were the three exceptions to the general rule as embodied in the British legislation and as virtually transcribed into our legislation.
It will become manifest at once that the purpose of the legislation of 1919 was to impede, for a period of ten years, the admission into citizenship in the British Empire of those who were enemy subjects. Consequently nothing can be more apparent than that there was no thought that those who were British subjects at that time should be affected in any way whatsoever by section 8 of the Naturalization Act. Its
purpose was only to delay, to impede for a fixed period, the admission to the privileges of British citizenship of those who theretofore had been subjects of enemy states.
Section 29 of our own Act provides that those who have become British subjects not by birth but by naturalization,-naturalization not based on the personal merit or qualification of the subject, but resulting from the operation of law alone-those subjects, though naturalized by the operation of law, must show the same qualification that British subjects should have before being admitted to the franchise. The intent of the section was that such examination, such investigation into the qualifications of those who would seek to vote by reason of naturalization by construction of law, should take place as would determine that they were qualified just in the same way as those who secured naturalization by personal application for same. The form of the certificate appended to section 29 is such that no one would be entitled to that certificate who, though not a British subject, could nevertheless become a British subject at that time. Well, it requires only a little reflection to see that the result is this: That the subject of an enemy state who became a British subject by construction or by operation of law would, if he or she had not so become a British subject, still be a subject of an enemy state. In this case the provisions of the Naturalization Act would at once tabs effect, and a judge hearing the application of such person for naturalization would be compelled to say: Yes, you are a British subject, but if you never had become such by construction of law I could not now make you such because-you would be a subject of an enemy state and consequently disabled under the provisions of the 1919 Naturalization Act. This is the way section 29 comes to read the way it does. It is, I believe, word for word the same section as appears in the Act of 1918 which first of all gave the franchise to women and then determine what should be the extent of woman's voting privilege as a result of that franchise. The 1918 Act effected the purpose that it was intended to effect, because there was at that time no Naturalization Act to read with it. Subsequently the 1919 Naturalization Act was passed, and in the By-election Act of last year, just as in the Act of 1918, a similar clause to clause 29 of this Bill appeared. That was carried forward into the legislation that is now presented to the House, and from the discussion of yesterday it appeared that reading the Naturalization Act

with this section, a consequence not intended by the Government resulted. That that consequence does result there can be, in my judgment, no doubt; indeed, the Acting Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Guthrie) in answer to an inquiry last night, clearly indicated that it did result. Now, I firmly adhere to the principle that no one in this country naturalized merely by operation of law should acquire rights to the franchise until he or she shows that in point of actual qualification he or she lives up to the general provisions of the legislation applicable to all naturalized subjects; lives up to all the qualifications that others applying for naturalization must have. No reason in the world could be advanced why, .for example, a married woman who becomes a British subject, perhaps two or three days or weeks after she comes to Canada from an enemy country, by the mere act of marriage with a former alien enemy who had previously been naturalized, should be entitled to the franchise, whereas a man coming from an enemy country must, before he may be naturalized, show that he has an adequate knowledge of French and of English; that he possesses a character such as we desire in citizens of this country and the other qualifications called for in general by the provisions of the Naturalization Act. Those requirements that are demanded from all who come from all countries and ask for citizenship here should be found to exist in all persons who desire the franchise in Canada before that franchise should be granted. But I do not think, and I am sure that on reflection hon. gentlemen will see that it could not be logically argued, that any special disability should be put upon a person which was intended to apply to non-British subjects but which, taking into account the Naturalization Act and reading in connection with it the Act of this year, has the effect of applying to British subjects to whom it was never intended to apply at all. If that were to result, an alien enemy or one who formerly had been an alien enemy, who came to Canada in 1910 or 1911, took a homestead, and, to fulfil the requirements of the homestead law, took out naturalization in 1913 and became a British subject,-that alien enemy, according to the Act now presented, is entitled to the right to vote. Such a man under the provisions of the previous law which operated only for the duration of the war would not have had the right to vote, whereas a person who came to this country say forty years ago, and shortly after coming, say at the age of eighteen, became a naturalized British subject by reason of the naturalization of his 
father and had remained a British subject and had voted as such throughout all the elections since and even in the election of 1918-that person would find himself disentitled to the franchise. Well, there could be no justification, it clearly appears to me, for disfranchising that person and enfranchising the other. A much stronger argument could have been made for the retention of the disability on the recent arrival than could possibly be applied to a person who had been a British subject and a resident of Canada for perhaps forty years. That was not the intention of section 29, and the Government will propose in committee an amendment to the effect that no disability read out of paragraph (B) of subclause 4 of section 8 of the Naturalization Act should disentitle a person on that ground alone to the certificate required under section 29 of the present legislation. I feel that I have made clear our position as it is assumed by the Government. Of course, hon. members understand, without any explanation from file, that this Bill, in all its provisions and with all its principles, because as regards principles there are a dozen or twenty-four principles in legislation of this kind, as merely a declaration first of all that provision should be made for a general manhood suffrage and then that provision should be made for machinery for taking the vote In Canada for purposes of the election of members to this House. Hon. gentlemen will agree, without any explanation from me, that this Bill, presented in this way to the House of Commons, comes before the House open to amendment, discussion and suggestion. In respect of section 29 as I now explain it to the House, and in respect of every other section, as regards every feature whether embodied in the Bill or believed ought to embodied in the Bill, the Bill comes before the House, for suggestions as to amendment and for improvement if, in the wisdom of the House, improvement can be made. I simply present this feature of the legislation as it was intended to be constructed, with the effect it was intended to have, and in that way the Bill will be laid before the House in committee for full discussion and debate.


Ernest Lapointe: Has the amendment
been prepared?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the minister
gits down, I should be obliged if he would give some explanation of what is meant in the certificate attached to section 29. I have not been able to satisfy myself as to really what it means.


Arthur Meighen: I am not in charge of the legislation and I have already spoken. I do not know that I can add anything to the very clear words of the certificate. The certificate says, in effect, that no one, as J express it, constructively naturalized, shall vote unless he or she gets a certificate from a judge to the effect that, on his or her own .merits as a citizen, he or she would be entitled to naturalization aside from the fact that he or sihe had become naturalized by operation of law.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, the certificate will have to be changed in order to make it agree with the amendment.


Arthur Meighen: Either that, or something would be required to be added to the effect that the certificate could not be denied, only because of the provision of sub-clause (b) to which I referred.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Before the hon member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) speaks, I must mention that he would be precluded from speaking inasmuch as he moved the adjournment of the debate and did not proceed with his speech, but he did not proceed out of courtesy to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen). I *merely mention this so that the occurrence {may not be taken as a precedent.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to pursue the discussion along the lines of the debate of last evening, nor to make any review whatever of the remarks made by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) to-day. The discussion of last evening dealt with very interesting aspects of the question. The discussion respecting a clause disfranchising certain persons, not aliens, but British subjects, and the kindred legislation concerning the naturalization law, was certainly deeply interesting, much more interesting, I am sure, than anything I can hope to present to-day. In several of the speeches, and notably in the most impressive and very calm and effective speech of the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Euler), we had presented what I may call the anomalies, injustices, and even absurdities which would arise under ,the operation of this franchise measure if it were to remain in the condition in which it now stands. I hope that the suggestion made to-day by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) will remove some of those difficulties, and that when we have the Bill in its final shape, there will not be so much room for the criticism which was so effectively offered by the hon. member for Waterloo North. It is, however, not with these subjects, but rather with the more prosaic and matter of fact features of the Bill in one or two particulars that I desire to deal. There are many aspects of this measure which can most conveniently be discussed in committee, but there are some leading features which we may well discuss, as we have been discussing them, at this stage, the second reading of the Bill.
I accept, in unreserved manner, the assurance of the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) that the desire of the Government is to make this a fair and sound Bill which can be accepted by all parties. Believing that he has that object in view, and having in mind his invitation that suggestions are desired from all classes, I want to call the attention of the minister and the Government to one or two features of the Bill which I think are capable of amendment in order that the purposes which the Government say they have in view may be carried out.
In the operation of our electoral machinery, there are two stages at which there arise very strong temptations for the Government of the day to exercise an undue influence. The first of these is with regard to the preparation of the electoral lists. The second of the occasions when they have a strong temptation to act otherwise than fairly is with regard to the appointment of returning officers. If the 4 p.m. Government may obtain, wholly or partly, control over the pre-partion of the electoral lists, and if after that preliminary step in connection with the electoral machinery has been taken, .they can proceed to go out into the highways and byways and select any partisans they please to fill the places of returning officers, then we shall not have a fair Franchise Act; we shall have a measure designed to bring about the purposes of the Government and not to guard, as they should do, the franchise as a sacred trust. In both these respects, the Government are taking to themselves unnecessary, dangerous power, power that they should not seek, power which the House ought not to grant. I shall not occupy the attention of the House more than a few minutes; but first, let us give a thought to the question of the returning officers. After the Acting Solicitor General had discussed the question for some time, some hon. member, it appears, had suggested that the judges might appoint returning officers. The Acting Solicitor General at once took exception to that, and I heartily agree with him on that point. I
A

do not think judges should be called upon to appoint returning officers. We are all interested in keeping our judges out of politics, and I agree with the Acting Solicitor General that if we were to give judges power to appoint returning officers, that would be getting them dangerously near the political field. But it does not follow that because it is not wise to have judges make the appointments, we should give an unreserved hand to the Government to make the appointments themselves. It is true they have that power now; and that it has been exercised improperly is easily capable of proof. Every hon. member probably has within his own experience some knowledge of appointments made of returning officers which were not made for the highest purposes of a Franchise Act. But should the Government have an unlimited power? In my province of Nova Scotia, the Government exercises the power to appoint returning officers. The Acting Solicitor General says that this is a power which the Government should nob abdicate, and I agree with him on that; the Government should take the power. But in Nova Scotia, when the Government appoint returning officers, they aie not free to appoint whom they please; they must appoint the sheriffs of the province, who are judicial officers, so that there the Government, while they exercise the power of appointing returning officers, are not free to go out and appoint partisans for that important function, but they must take important public judicial officers for that duty.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Who appoints the
officers?


William Stevens Fielding: The Government of'
Nova Scotia.


Mr. BEST:: How much better would that be?


William Stevens Fielding: I expected that my hon. friend or somebody else would raise that question. But if the appointment of a sheriff by a Government makes him the partisan of that Government, does the appointment of a judge by the Dominion Government make him a partisan of that Government? What is the difference between an officer appointed by the Dominion Government to perform a judicial duty and an officer appointed by a provincial government to perform what is also a judicial duty? If we regard it as a crime for the Government of a province to appoint a sheriff to perform such a duty, what shall we say of the Dominion Government which calls upon the judges of the country whom they appoint to

discharge judicial functions in connection with the administration of this law? Partisans they are and naturally always will be. I am not finding fault with the appointment of judges; I am not making complaint. But when exception is taken to a sheriff because he is an appointee of a provincial government, I say that with equal force one could take exception to deputing to one of the judges the duties in connection with this Bill, because the judge is appointed by the Dominion Government.
Let us consider the province of Quebec, from which there are some things that we can very well learn. The Government of the province of Quebec undertake the function of appointing returning officers, but they do not claim for themselves an unlimited right to choose. They cannot go out on the highways and byways and pick up the first man who will serve their purpose. They have the right to appoint the returning officer, but they must appoint him from the prescribed list of permanent public officials. If I am correct in the opinion, I think these officers are the sheriff, the pro-thonotary, and the registrar. At all events, there are three permanent stated officers and the Government must appoint one or other of them. Why cannot we have a similar provision in this Bill? If objection be taken that these three officers are provincial officers, then, as I have already said, the fact that they are provincial officers is no more a disqualification than the appointment by the Dominion Goverftment is a disqualification in respect of a judge. In both cases you have men discharging, with a sense of responsibility, a judicial function, or what is to some extent a judicial function. But if there is anything in the point that because officers are appointed by the provincial government they are disqualified, then let us enlarge the list and say that the Dominion Government shall select as returning officer a person from a class on a prescribed list; and if the three officials named in the province of Quebec, or the sheriff named in Nova Scotia, are not enough, then put on the list, if you like, one or two responsible officers appointed by the Dominion. My point is this: I do not think that the Government should have the power, as they now have, to go out on the street and select any partisan and appoint him as a returning officer. I want them to exercise their power, but I desire to see them exercise it with the limitation that they shall appoint to this high and important office some man who has already a fixed status in the country, a man who

holds a responsible office, either local or Dominion, and who can therefore be held accountable for his acts. I submit in all sincerity to the Government of the day that in seeking the continuation of the present system,, whereby they can take any partisan they choose and appoint him to the position of returning officer, they are exercising a dangerous power; and if the Government desire to make this Bill as fair and equitable as it is their avowed intention to make it- I am accepting their assurance in that regard-I ask them very earnestly to give careful consideration to what I have said touching the selection of returning officers.
Let us turn to the question of provincial lists. My hon. friend the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) argued at considerable length to prove that this Parliament has the power to enact a Dominion Franchise law. Well, Mr. Speaker, I really do not know why the hon. gentleman devoted so much time to that point. I do not think that any one ever disputed the power of Parliament to pass a Dominion Franchise Law. I am quite sure that Edward Blake and the other great men to whom reference was made never for one moment set up the contention that the passing of a Dominion Franchise Act was beyond the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. It was not a question of constitutional power or of constitutional jurisdiction; it was a question of public convenience and public advantage; it was a question of public economy. I think it is a great pity we could not have in every province provincial lists adopted for Dominion purposes. I can see great advantages in that if it were possible. The preparation of these lists is a matter of great trouble and expense, sometimes of worry and annoyance, to men interested in politics. It is a pity we have to have trouble of that kind in the preparation of one list, and it is doubly a pity that we should have to go to the same trouble and expense a second time for a Dominion list. I repeat that the question is one of public convenience and not of constitutional power. I have had such strong views on that question that a great many years ago, in the early days of my political experience in Nova Scotia-more years ago than I care to confess-I remember sending a telegram to Sir John Macdonald offering the suggestion-for the franchise question was then up at Ottawa-that instead of quarreling about lists a conference should be called of the Dominion and provincial governments with a view to agreeing upon some basis of lists that both could accept. Unfortunately that view
was not taken. My hon. friend, the Acting Solicitor General yesterday read an extract from a speech delivered by Sir John Thompson who said that there was so little difference between the Dominion and provincial franchise that there was no reason for maintaining the separation. I quite agree. But if the difference was so slight that there was no need for two law's, what need should there be for two lists? For obvious reasons, we should favour the adoption of provincial lists generally, if it rwere (possible, but we know that it is not possible because the Mists of the several provinces differ so widely. In Quebec the women are not on the list, and clearly, if we are to carry out the purpose of this House, so far as that province is concerned, there must be some machinery for enrolling the women of Quebec. In that case you cannot adopt the provincial list as it stands. In the case of Prince Edward Island, there are no lists at all. A man comes to the poll and swears that he has the right to vote, and he votes. Speaking generally, I think that is a dangerous practice. Prince Edward Island is a happy, prosperous community where everyone knows everyone else, and there is no room for dispute regarding any one's qualifications down there. That province is the most prosperous part of the Dominion of Canada. There are none who are very rich and none very poor; everyone knows his neighbour, and there are no possibilities of dispute. But when you adopt generally the principle in vogue in that province you will have men coming up to the poll at the last moment and getting on the list by simply Swearing that they have the right to he placed on it. As I say, that is a dangerous principle. I am afraid that you cannot adopt the provincial lists generally. Let me say, however, that the provincial lists ought to be encouraged wherever they exist and are fair and reasonable. What I am about .to say by way of illustration concerns Nova Scotia, but it may, I think, be said as well concerning New Brunswick. I think that conditions are much the same in these two provinces, hut my hon. friends from New Brunswick will speak for themselves. There is no reason why the lists of .the province of Nova Scotia made up under the existing law should not he accepted as a* finality, and When the Government proposes to appoint A, B, and C, possibly their own partisans, to get out and add to that list or take from it, I think they are making a grave mistake. Whatever may be said about the other provinces, the lists are made up in Nova Scotia in a way which

I believe leaves no room for dispute. What is the method? The foundation of the electoral list in Nova Scotia is the assessment roll. The property qualification in Nova Scotia is so small that I agree with the statement that it is virtually manhood suffrage. The revisors are' not appointed by the Government of Nova Scotia but by the municipal councils. They take the first assessment roll as a basis. That assessment roll indicates the names of all persons who are assessed as owners of property, to a very modest extent, as tenants of property, also to a moderate degree, as sons of tenants, sons of owners, sons of farmers. Practically speaking, it gets down almost to a basis of manhood suffrage. A public notice is given of a day when the revisers will meet for the purpose of making further inquiry. The lists as prepared by the officers are posted up, the officers hold a meeting, and those concerned add to the list or take from it as the case may be. The lists are then made up. Is there no appeal? Yee, there is an appeal to the sheriff. I suppose my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) from his interruption a moment ago, considers that that is no appeal at all. The sheriffs of Nova Scotia are as much a judicial body, lacking only in volume of dignity, as the judges of our country. They hold their offices by a tenure almost as secure as that of the judges. There was a time many years ago when the sheriffs held their offices from year to year. That has passed away and the sheriff is now appointed not for life, but during good behaviour, and he can only be removed for cause. Let me illustrate the character of these men from my own experience. There are two counties -Queen's and Shelburne-


George Green Foster: The hon. gentleman says they can be removed. What is the removing power?


William Stevens Fielding: The Government of the province which appoints them and nobody else. I do not know whether my hon. friend can suggest anybody else.


George Green Foster: No; I just wanted the information.


William Stevens Fielding: I want to illustrate the character of these sheriffs to show that they are a body deserving of respect. It is a fact that they are appointed during good behaviour. I want to give an illustration from my own constituency. I happen to represent two counties. In these counties there are two sheriffs and the junior of these two sheriffs is the senior in the mat-

ter of the years of his official life of all the judges in the province of Nova Scotia. He is a man of longer experience in official life than any member of the bench of Nova Scotia. The junior of these two men has been in office for thirty-six years. He is the sheriff of the county of Queens. The sheriff of the county of Shelburne has been in office for forty-three years. The sheriff of the county of Shelburne, Mr. George Maclean, a most respected Conservative, was appointed many, many years ago by a Conservative Government. He was in office when I and my friends came into power in 1882. He was continued as a capable and respected official and he has been there for forty-three years, a man who has performed the duties of his office, as sheriff and returning officer, in a manner that has won the respect and confidence of the people at large. These happen to be the older sheriffs in the province. Other hon. gentlemen who are familiar with the sheriffs in other counties will be able to testify that the sheriffs of Nova Scotia are a body well qualified to act as a court of appeal in the revising of the lists and although there may be some party strife I think we all agree that the manner in which the sheriffs of Nova Scotia discharge their duties is satisfactory to all political parties. Therefore I want to suggest now in regard to the provincial lists, whatever may happen with other provinces, because in Canada conditions vary, that the Government consider the manner in which the lists in each province are made up and that, unless they have some reason to believe that the lists are made up in a partisan and unfair manner, they accept the lists as a finality and do not appoint any parties of their own to go out and put names on, or take them off and make up whole new lists for themselves. In the interest of fair play I ask it; in the interest of economy I ask it. It means a waste of time and money to get out a second list under conditions of that character. I think the situation is much the same in New Brunswick but again I say I must not speak too positively as to that.
My only purpose at present is to offer the Government in all good faith two suggestions., The first is that you amend your present system of appointing returning officers. If it is necessary to show how that system has been abused I shall be prepared to do so but I do not want to raise that question now. As I am not dealing with individual cases; I am only dealing with principles. I would suggest that the Gov-

ernment adopt a prescribed list of officials from whom they shall select their returning officers and if there is any fear that the provincial officers are prejudiced then put on your prescribed list some Dominion official who can be called upon to act as a returning officer and who would be a responsible citizen known to everybody. Let that be done instead of appointing a man particularly for the occasion.
The second point is that inasmuch as I believe the lists of Nova Scotia are fairly made and there is no reason why they should not be accepted, I want to suggest to the Government that as respects that province unless somebody can show that the lists are not fairly made, these lists be accepted as a finality and that this Government shall not send out men to disturb lists of that kind.


Mr. THOMIAS  POSTER@East York: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) should be congratulated upon the very able address with which he favoured this House in introducing the Franchise Bill. Although we have had in this Parliament such great men as Macdonald, Blake, Mackenzie, Aylesworth and others and although a review of the history of Parliament presents many notable figures, I think we will come to the conclusion that we have a degree of talent in the House to-day equal to that at any period in its history. It seems to me that while honouring the memory of the able men of those early days we should not be unmindful of the quality of the men that we have in this House to-day. If I chose, I think I could name many members who are sitting in the House to-day who could be truly compared with the great men of former years.
The hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), in replying to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence laboured very strenuously in his criticism of the Franchise Bill. His attempt was a complete failure. His particular effort seemed to be to inform the House that while he was offering a criticism of the Bill, at a later period, when it came before the committee, he would reserve the right to further criticize it and possibly suggest many amendments. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that he has need to make a greater effort if he wishes to be more successful than he did yesterday.
The Minister of Militia and other members of" the Government, with the ability which they possess, have prepared what
may be a fair Bill but there possibly will be some amendments to be made to it. In fact there are some amendments that they have consented to make. But I think there should be other amendments. I think the Government should consider the disfranchising of slackers, deserters, evaders and alien enemies. When I speak of this class of citizens I might remind the House that we have had some experience. We need only go back a few months and recall what took place in the great city of Winnipeg. There we found a class of people who were creating a great deal of trouble and who undertook to cause a rebellion that might have spread throughout the Dominion and become a very serious matter for the country at large. However, it was checked. These people were principally foreigners but amongst them were a few Canadians who had held prominent positions including some clergymen who had associated themselves with these foreigners and aliens in the effort to create a rebellion in this country. That being so there is still danger to be feared from the actions of the "Reds" or Bolshevists of whom we have many thousands in Canada. There should be some check on this class of people and they should not be permitted to dictate, or to voice their views, as to how the country should be governed, or offer themselves for public positions, neither should they be permitted to participate in the enactment of legislation. In my opinion this class should be disfranchised and the present Bill should be amended so as to bring about that result. In order to retain control over these people either the War-time Elections Act should be continued or the present Bill should be amended in the desired direction.
We must consider the sentiments of the people of Ontario and of Manitoba and the other Western Provinces with respect to slackers, deserters and evaders. We should heed the desire expressed in regard to these persons not only by returned soldiers, but by. the mothers, wives and sisters of men who fought at the front, and who say that these undesirable individuals should not enjoy the rights of free citizenship. I think I am safe in saying that hundreds of thousands of worthy citizens throughout the Dominion have given utterance to that sentiment. In my travels throughout the Dominion, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, I have found that a general feeling exists in favour of the disfranchisement of these undesirable characters, and that the aliens

especially should be deprived of the franchise for some years to come. During the war we had to intern many thousands of these aliens in order to prevent them from destroying the property and probably even going further and destroying life, and the adoption of the necessary safeguards involved the Dominion in millions of dollars of expense. I do not think that these people have changed materially in their sentiments since the war was brought to a close, and therefore the Government would be well advised to enact such amendments to the present Bill as will disfranchise them until they have demonstrated themselves to be suitable citizens. They should not be allowed to be candidates for office or register a vote at any election in this country. It is not asking too much to insist upon that course. All slackers, deserters and evaders should be disfranchised for at least ten years. 1 have heard it even suggested that the period of disfranchisement be extended to twenty or twenty-five years, but the shorter time proposed will give us a chance to judge as to their qualifications for citizenship. It is not fair to those gallant men who freely volunteered their services to defend this country and the rest of the British Empire that slackers and men of a similar type should have as free a voice in the making of the country's laws as should be enjoyed by those who underwent such great sacrifices. To any such proposition as that I say No.
When it became necessary to reinforce the ranks of our gallant men who were fighting overseas and the Military Service Act was called into operation, many young men who should have been in the ranks of the defenders of this country fled to the backwoods and even crossed to the United States to avoid military service. Perhaps if these young men had been left alone they would have accepted conscription and would not have been characterized so unworthily as evaders. Unfortunately they were badly advised, by certain of the Liberal press. Doubtless if good counsel had been extended to them many of these men would have gone overseas without any compulsion. But the advice given to them was bad, perhaps even pressure was brought to bear upon them. They acted upon that advice and failed to rally to the defence of this country. Why then should the same treatment be extended to these young men as is enjoyed by those who fought and bled for their country and the Empire?
It would almost appear as though the underlying motive with some persons in

their antagonism to our war efforts was to sacrifice the English and preserve the young Frenchmen of Quebec. Doubtless many hon. gentlemen opposite will dispute the existence of any such motive; but I have heard it stated by many citizens throughout Canada that there appeared to be in the province of Quebec a desire to conserve the lives of the young French-Canadians and to sacrifice men of British birth so that those who had thus been preserved to the detriment of the British-born might be free to engage in a policy of expansion having for its object the securing of control in the other provinces of the Dominion.
We have been told by the hon. member for Red Deer that we should get rid of "the war mind." How is it possible to get rid of the war mind when we recall the numerous slackers, deserters and evaders who have shirked their duty in Canada? It is all very well to talk of getting rid of the war feeling, but that feeling has been so strongly impressed upon the minds of people in the majority of homes in this country by the actions of those individuals to whom I have referred that it is very hard to eradicate.
, The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) asks us to help , heal the wounds of war. Who created 'the wounds of war? The slackers, the deserters, the draft evaders- men who refused to do their duty in their country's hour of need. How can we heal the wounds of war, Mr. Speaker, when those wounds are so impressed on the minds of our people? It is all very well for the hon. member for Red Deer, who, as well as his brave sons, did their duty nobly and well, to preach reconciliation, but he must remember that all minds do not think alike, ,and he must permit those who lost their loved ones at the front to express their opinions as to how soon they will be prepared to forget iand forgive. I venture to say that it will take a lifetime to erase from their minds the impressions created by the war.
In some parts of the Dominion we had the experience of practically no response from young men to do their duty, notwithstanding the efforts of the Government by voluntary pnlistment and, that having failed, by conscription, to bring those young men to a sense of their obligations to fight for their country. Indeed, the attempt to enforce the Military Service Act led to riots in some parts of the Dominion, and we heard the threat made that rather than obey the law those men would create a revolution. I submit, Sir, that it was not creditable to en-

courage that condition of affairs, and it seems to me that a great deal of the responsibility for this revolutionary sentiment is upon the shoulders of many of the priests and bishops and public men of this Dominion. It has been said by bon. members that there should be no ill-feeling amongst th'e people of the various provinces, but when we remember such instances of disloyalty it forces us to the conclusion that it will take many years to restore the oldtime harmony that existed in this country. Had those who were so anxious to give advice attended to their own business I believe conditions would have been entirely different. I do not blame those young men, but I do blame their advisers. I firmly be-Jieve that we shall not be able to overcome the lack of harmony created by such improper advice for perhaps another forty years.


Mr. W. H. WHITE (Victoria, Alta.):: Mr. Speaker, as one who comes from a constituency which this Bill is bound to affect very periously, I would like to say a few words. The matter has been pretty well discussed, particularly by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), who has pointed out the great injustice that is about to be done to a large proportion of our population. 1 may say that it is not in any spirit of selfinterest that I am taking part in the debate, because, owing to the Military Service Act, those who were inclined to support me did not get an opportunity to do so.
I may also say that I was not, as was charged by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) against another hon. member (Mr. Pardee) elected by reason of the Military Service Act. I submit, Mr. Speaker, there must have been a tremendous difficulty in the Unionist party when of two members elected on the same ticket one cannot withdraw from that party without the other taunting him that he could never have been elected had it not been for that Adt.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Mr. Speaker, permit
me to say that the hon. gentleman is misquoting me. I never said anything of the kind.


William Henry White: Would the hon.
member allow me to quote his exact words to that effect?


William Cameron Edwards: I will be very glad for my hon. friend to do so-,

if he can.


William Henry White: I find the following passage in the unrevised Hansard report of the hon. gentleman's speech:
The hon. gentleman is very bold and very courageous in stating to this House and to the country that he does not care a button whether his course is popular or unpopular. Just a short time ago he was perfectly willing, when he was seeking election in 1917. to avail himself of the measure disfranchising some people whom to-day he says it would be a crying shame to disfranchise.
A little later in the course of his speech the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) said:
The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Pardee) in the election of 1917 was not only perfectly willing, but anxious to avail himself of the Act which was passed enabling him to get his seat in the House.
Is that clear? Will the hon. gentleman accept Hansard?


William Cameron Edwards: I said that he was willing to take advantage of the Act which gave him the soldier votes.


William Henry White: "To get his seat in the House."


William Cameron Edwards: That does not say that the soldier vote elected him. That is what my hon. friend said; I did not say that.


William Henry White: "Enabling him to get his seat in the House " and " being elected ''-there may be some distinction between those two statements, but there is very little difference. With regard to the Bill itself and the promise that has been made by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) that some changes will be made in the most contentious clause-clause 29- I may say that certain hon. members from the eastern part of Canada, judging from their remarks regarding the people affected by this Bill, would lead one to believe that there is something wrong with those people,-that they are so wild and unprogressive that we would he better rid of them. I think the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said: We do not want them; let us get rid of them, or words to that effect. But let us go outside of this Parliament and take the statement of a man to whom frequent reference is made in this House, the man who is able to, handle the largest spending department of the Government. I refer to Mr. D. B. Hanna. I remember his appearing before a committee of some members of this House and pointing out that some of the most productive districts in the North-west Territories were settled by Austrians. He pointed to a certain line along which these people had located and said that more was being produced along that line than in any other part of Canada. These people, he said, are our hope for the West; some day they will be our best citizens.

I ask hon. gentlemen what is the matter with these people? What is the charge against them? What have they ever done that they should be discriminated against or singled out for special treatment? Let us take the history of these people. They came to this country at the invitation of the Government of the day; they settled on land that was not cleared; in many cases they took sections en bloc in order that they anight be together, and often they got the very worst kind of land. But they were encouraged to settle on it, and to-day wherever they are, they are producing more per acre than any other class in the whole of the Western territory. What have they done? Have they not been as progressive as others? Do they not produce as much? What was their attitude when the war broke out? An hon. gentleman on the other side of the House has said that thousands of them left his district and enlisted in our Forces. In some cases they changed their nationality in order to be able to enlist. They wanted to become Canadians; they wanted to serve Canada. I may say in passing that they are a people who bring no national pride with them; you never hear them boast of their country, as the Americans and the Old Country people do. The Austrian never says anything about the country that he came from, though after he learns English he may tell you what part of Ontario he had been in. He wants to be a Canadian citizen. He does not want to be an Austrian all his life; he never intended such a thing. But apparently we do not want to let him become a Canadian. If the member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) were here he would bear me out when I say that the provincial constituency of Whitford in Alberta, largely peopled by Ukrainians, was the first constituency in that province, or perhaps, in any province, to make a voluntary assessment upon themselves of $5 each per month for the Patriotic Fund. Afterwards they went further and subscribed another $5, making the contribution $10 per month from every homesteader in that district. So that from that point of view they appear to be good citizens. The very fact that the 218th Regiment was made up of ninety per cent of that class of the people shows that they were willing to serve their country.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: What was the other name of the 218th Regiment?


William Henry White: I believe it was called the " Cornwall Cossacks."


William Antrobus Griesbach: It was the "Irish Guards," was it not?


William Henry White: They were called the Irish Guards first and afterwards the Cornwall Cossacks. But that only goes to support my statement that the majority of them were of that class. That nickname was applied to them because most of the men were of Austrian birth, but they did good service.
Now, it appears that these people have been willing both to assist patriotic movements and to serve their country in the military forces. Moreover, hundreds of them got past the recruiting officers and went to the war; yet under the provisions of an Act similar to this the wives, mothers, sisters and brothers of these people were cheated out of their vote in the election of 1917-that is, if you like to call it an election. I never considered it an election; in my opinion it was a revolution. A revolution is usually organized and carried out for the purpose of removing from office a Government that cannot be dislodged by constitutional means, but this revolution was organized and carried out for the purpose of continuing in office a Government which could not remain in office by constitutional means. This revolution has had no parallel on this continent, unless it be in Mexico and some of the other Latin republics.
While on this subject I wish to read from a local paper to show what is the spirit of the Ukrainians in the Western country. A body of Ukrainian farmers, about the time the Soldiers' Land Settlement scheme was inaugurated, held a meeting and adopted the following resolution:
We, the Ukrainian farmers assembled at this meeting, hereby volunteer and promise to gratuitously help any returned soldiers settling In my district on the land by offering to do all the required improvements on their farms, such as hauling lumber, erecting buildings and fences, clearing, breaking and discing the land, and will also arrange to do all necessary work with our teams and machinery during the seeding and harvesting operations, free of charge.
Yet some people say they are against the soldier. The resolution continues:
We also wish to solemnly assure such newcomers that friendly help will be at their disposition, and they will not suffer any want or hardships of a beginner. And we will greatly appreciate the presence of the returned man in our communities who would be able, willing and anxious to teach us the great British ideals, to promote our loyalty and to help us to attain the standard of British citizenship.
Knowing that the soldiers who would take up land would have difficulties to meet, these people determined to make it as easy for the soldiers as possible and solemnly pledged themselves to give them assistance.

Governments, like people, sometimes have suspicions that are not well founded. Shortly after the war broke out the Government called from their duties certain members of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. I was for many years a member of that body. It is an organization that has a splendid record for efficiency; no organization of its kind has had so few failures recorded against it. Well, these men moved about among the Austrians and people of that class in the West, not in uniform but in civilian clothes, putting forward one pretext or another-the pretext of buying cattle or of looking for land; and during four years of this ferret work they never found one man in Victoria district guilty of uttering a word of sedition. Why be suspicious about a class of people like this? * If you go into some other sections among the Scotch, you will find somebody who is dissatisfied and making criticisms in connection with the conduct of the war. I do not know whether or not you can find any such people amongst the Irish. There is, however, no reason at all for these suspicions, because those people have never done anything to warrant them.
Let me take another class of people with whom this measure is going to deal harshly. I know of a man of the nationality to which I refer who comes under this Act, who sent his boy to the war, and his boy is still over there and will remain there. Under this measure, if it passes, that man, now that his son does not give him a vote, is disfranchised and he cannot vote in the next election. Another case which I know is that of an Englishman, British-born, married to a German girl, and there is a good deal of intermarriage of that kind in this country. They had three children, one boy being nine years old, and although that man made the supreme sacrifice, his wife is not entitled to vote under this legislation. That may be justice; it may be freedom ; it may be the way to build up national unity, but it does not look like that to me. I am sorry the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) is not in the House, for two reasons, one being that I wished to compliment him on the splendid speech he made the other day when he said that we should have more tolerance; that we should get closer together; that while it was very easy, sitting in private, side by side, to agree, when we got into the House, differences arose. I should like to submit to him the case of two neighbours of mine who came to this country possibly thirty years ago, farmed side by side; who paid the
same taxes, who went through this period of development, suffering hardships side by side, each man doing his part to develop and make a great country of Canada. Then, when an election comes along, although they pay the same share in taxes and every thing else, one man is disfranchised while the other is permitted to exercise his franchise. iSuch a condition of things is unfair whatever way you view it.
Another case which I should like to mention is that of a man, honest and good enough to pay an income tax on $11,000 of his profits, paying it cheerfully. This man sent his eldest son to France and he is still overseas and will remain there, but his father is disfranchised under this measure. We know that this present Government and'the Conservative Government before it have at least the reputation of dividing the Canadian people into two classes. It is chai'ged to them, and I think everybody who knows anything about the matter will say, that they are to blame for whatever disunion there exists at the present day. If the Acting Prime Minister were in his seat, I should like to appeal to him, because judging by the speech he made the other day I do not believe that this Bill suits him very well. Although he is only Acting Prime Minister for a short period of time, let it not be said that under his regime he is creating another unnecessary division. These people of whom I speak and who are disfranchised will, as long as they live, be called alien Canadians; they cannot get away from that. We have the French Canadian and the English Canadian, but these people will be distinguished by being called alien Canadians, and there is not much chance of building up, and it is a waste of time and energy for any one to speak of unity in Canada when 5 p.m. every session, one after another, the Government brings down legislation that divides people further and further apart. I do not expect that there will be any fairness in this Bill. I feel somewhat as the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. H. A. Mackie) does about the Bill. He said: We shall have another Act that will win our elections by disfranchising. He suggested to the Government that they should go further and do the thing right and disfranchise all but those who voted for Union Government last time. I will go one better than my hon. friend; I will raise the " ante " and say that there is no need at this time to go to the expense of a general election. Money is very hard to get, and this measure is framed in such a way

that you can have out of it pretty nearly any result you wish. My suggestion is that there should be one man appointed by the Government to decide the political complexion of each district and that the Government should be allowed to appoint that man.
Mr. H. A. MACKIiE: My hon. friend agrees with me that we ought to disfranchise every one who voted against the Government?


William Henry White: No, I was supporting the suggestion of my hon. friend by going him one better. The suggestion was yours and 'I made it better. My hon. friend thought- that would be a good idea.


Ernest Lapointe: Even at that the Government would not be safe.


William Henry White: ll do not think I have anything to add, but ll am sorry I cannot hope for any success, because the policy of the Government seems to be "safety first." That is the game they are playing. This Bill is, for this side of the House, a little worse than the other election law, a lid for hon. members opposite, a little better. They are exercising their privilege of making laws with majorities, and I suppose they will continue to do so as long as the people permit them. I wanted to do my duty, in fairness to many citizens although they will never have an opportunity to support me or, for that matter, to vote against me, in bringing this matter to the attention of the House and in endeavouring to find out what reasons the Government have for so unfairly discriminating against these people.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Georges Etienne Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, representing one of the most cosmopolitan constituencies in the Dominion of Canada, I feel that I cannot allow this debate to conclude without offering a few observations, reserving any extended remarks which I may have to make when the. Bill reaches the committee stage. I have not had the time to peruse with -care the Bill as it is before the House; but I have read several sections of it, and in my remarks I wish particularly to deal with those. Perhaps, inasmuch as I have not read this measure, I may be considered to be in the same position as the famous Sydney Smith who said that he never read a book before he reviewed it, because it prejudiced him so. The origin of some of the principles embodied in this Bill will be found in the Act which was passed in

the session of 1919; that is, in the By-elections Act, and the part of it to which I wish to refer particularly is that which deals with the naturalization of married women. The House will remember that when that Bill came before the House in July, 1919, I made a somewhat vigorous attack on the principle enunciated and in the clause of that Bill to which I am about to refer. Notwithstanding anything that we on this side of the House had to say, the Bill went through, and probably the Government find that it has worked so well that they want to perpetuate it in the Bill now before us.
I should like to know from the Acting Solicitor General or from the Government, why a distinction is made in the matter of naturalization and in the matter of voting, between women born on the North American continent and women born on the continent of Europe. Is it because women on this continent are more intelligent? Ts it because they are more refined? Or is it because they understand the advantages of voting for Union Government? What is the reason that women born on the continent of North America are placed in a category by themselves and in a higher class than are women born in Europe? Under this law, if it passes, you will find a full-blooded negress of San Domingo; a daughter of a Mexican greaser; a Mulatto from the State of Georgia, having greater rights in this country as voters, than the most refined and cultured womanhood of France, Belguim or any other continental Euiopean country. This is not a matter which affects enemy alien countries at all; it is not a matter that appertains only to Germany and Austria. It declares in so many words that any woman who comes from the continent of Europe is obliged to obtain personal naturalization from a judge of the district in which she lives before she can exercise the right to vote, while this negress from San Domingo will have the right to vote simply upon going to the poll and declaring that she is the wife of so-and-so, who happens to be a British subject. Is not that grotesque; is it not ridiculous; is it not something that brings the laws of this country into disrepute? Why, under this law the late respected Duchess of Connaught, if she were alive, and living in this country, would have no vote whatever; hut her cook or housemaid, or some person who happened to be imported from Alabama, would have the right to vote. I leave that thought with our super-patriots on the other side of the House.

I should like to. say a word or two with regard to the naturalization of alien enemies and the postponing of their naturalization and concomitant right to vote until the expiry of ten years after the' close of the war. There seems to be an idea among the members of this House, and *qven outside of this House, that we are excluding from naturalization the whole of Austria and Germany; that is to say, that every one who comes to this country from what were Austria and Germany will not be able to secure naturalization until the expiry of the ten-year period. That is not the fact. We are excluding from naturalization only those people from the portions of these countries that are still named, Austria, Germany, Bulgaria and Turkey. Austria to-day is dismembered. There is in that country a population of something like five or six milloins, in Vienna and the surrounding neighbourhood. Piactically the whole of Austria, or fifty-five millions of people, now comprises Jugo-Slavia, Czechoslovakia, Roumania and other countries surrounding Austria. The man in Canada from Vienna will not be allowed to exercise the franchise, but the man from Prague will have that right because he comes from Bohemia. The citizen from Cracow will be given the right to vote because he comes from what is now Poland, while citizens from any of the other places ll have mentioned will also be accorded the privilege by reason of the fact that they hail from countries that no longer form a part of the new Austria. I ask hon. members, is that a protection to this country? Are we protected when we give the right to vote to fifty-five millions cif former alien enemies, and deprive of this right a paltry five or six millions living in what is now Austria? Take Alsace, which to-day is as much German as is Saxony. If Alsace had the right to declare by plebiscite whether it would elect to remain a part of Germany or be a part of France, it would no doubt choose to remain with Germany. But citizens of Alsace to-day will have the right to come here and in the ordinary course be naturalized after five years. Any man living in Danzig to-day-and no one can conceive of any place more German than that- has the right to come and be naturalized in the same way, as if he did not come from an enemy country. But the man from Berlin will have no right to vote. These are some of the anomalies in the Act which naturally attract the attention of even the . most superficial observer, and it seems to 49
me that the Government must give some good and valid reason why it should declare in the Act that some people of enemy alien origin have not the right to vote while others have. Let us be logical first.
I desire to say a few words regarding the Naturalization Act which was passed last year, and which is intimately associated with this Act. We have bQasted in this House for the last year or two, at least since the Peace Treaty was signed,-and no one was louder in his paeans of praise of our nationhood than the President of the Privy Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell)-that Canada has achieved k national status and is now in a position which it has never occupied before. Mr. Speaker, we have not re-written one line nor changed one tittle of the British North America Act, but it seems that by some unseen force the whole position of Canada has changed, and we have now an entirely new status. That being so, do you not think that it would be only right and just that we should have onr own Naturalization Act?. Why was it that, simultaneously with our achievement of this national status, we tore our Naturalization Act into a thousand pieces and threw it into the waste paper basket, and accepted the British Naturalization Law? Surely we should be able to declare who is a British subject in Canada and who is not. Yet, when I ask the Acting Solicitor General why he did not allow these two Acts, the Imperial Naturalization Act and the Dominion Act, to function side by side, so that we could take our choice either of the Act conferring the right of British citizenship in Canada after three years, or the other extending the period to five years, the hon. member informed me:	"We have
only the Imperial Naturalization Act; we have not the right to draw up a different Naturalization Act and place it on the statute book, we must take the Naturalization Act dictated and written by Downing street and sent to us, and if we do not taKc it we shall get nothing." And we took it; we swallowed the dose, nauseous though it may have been.
I do not wish at this stage of the debate to go into the question of the advisability or justice of having in this country three different classes of citizens, first, the British citizen who has the right to vote; secondly the potential British citizen who will have the right to vote ten years after the expiration of the war; and, thirdly, the citizen who does not intend to become naturalized at all. Under the ancient system in England-and in Russia it continued, I think, down to 1862,-there were three classes of



citizens, first the free man; second, the serf; and third, the slave. We are making serfs Mr. Speaker, of these people to whom we deny the vote in the regular way. Here are people who come to- Canada, having selected this country from among all the countries in the world as that m which they should like to live and bring up their families, and where they expect to die. they have left their native country because they are dissatisfied with conditions at home, they are dissatisfied with the life lived there and with the class distinctions that prevail in their society. We admit them to this country, and mark you, Mr.' Speaker, before they are admitted they are examined through a microscope by the Immigration Department. The Department of Immigration have page after page of rules in regard to the admission of foreigners into this country. One who reads that list of rules would imagine that people thus selected are too good for this world, that they are as white as the driven snow and that they have to be 100 per cent perfect before they come into this country and are received by the immigration officers. They must be mentally perfect, they must be perfect physically, and they must never have declared any views in regard to constituted government-they must never have said that they wished to forcibly remove the autocrat of Russia or the Kaiser at Berlin When it is found that they have complied with all these requirements we permit them in the goodness of our hearts, to come into Canada. They are perfect, in so far as respectability is concerned when they enter. But they do not know about our naturalization law and they find that they have to wait ten years before they can be permitted to make the declaration: Civis Britannicus sum.
Why should they want to come to this country? They can go to the United States, reside there for five years and have conferred upon them the rights of American Citizenship, land those rights they hold against the world. If a man i.s a respectable citizen and if he is qualified in regard to the immigration rules, he is permitted to enter the United States and the test is one of character and not geography. But for some reason known only to the Government, hon. gentlemen fear that people who come from these countries may vote against [DOT] the Unionist Government. Judging from the lurid picture painted last night by the. hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) who said that they aTe the worst people in the world and that the door should be closed 
to them for all time, that they are traitors, and so on, one would imagine that these were a very bad lot, but all I have to say is that if 'they are only half as Prussian as the member for Frontenac they would qualify as voters on the Unionist side.
When these people can go to the United States and be received as citizens after five years' residence, why should they want to come to Canada; why should a German want to come to Canada? We are not offering any advantages to him; we * are declaring in our laws that he is to be put in a class 'by himself, that he is to be a pariah among our people, that he must breathe the free atmosphere of Canada for ten years before he is entitled to the rights of citizenship and that at the expiration of that time we, in the goodness of our hearts, may take him in. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) yesterday said something that I consider a truism. He said that people may chew together, or they may smoke together or perchance they may drink together, but when they go to the polls they cannot vote together. Do you think that makes for harmony in this country;-does it not rather make tor intolerance? The rank and file of our own people are the proper judges of these things, and it is the rank and file of our own people that the alien comes in contact with. What will be the impression of the Canadian citizen bom in humble circumstances who happens to fraternize with an alien in the village or on the farm, whom he finds to be quite a respectable person and fit to associate with his wife and family when he discovers that that alien is denied the privileges which, he himself possesses and for a reason which he cannot understand? The fact is that when this Bill becomes la-w it is going to prove a boomerang to those who are its authors. The Government will find that every man who is now denied the right to vote, when he does get that right after a period of ten years, will have his reckoning with the party and the Government.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is discussing the Naturalization Act. His re-mafks have no connection with the Bill which is before the House. There is nobody denied the* right under this Act. Does he suggest that persons not naturalized should vote?


Samuel William Jacobs: No, I do not buggest that persons not naturalized should vote but I do suggest that it was an outrage on the part of the Government to permit to pass into legislation the Naturalization Act of

1917, which declares that these people shall not have a right to naturalization until they have been in the country for ten years.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend himself had a part in that; he did not even challenge a division of the House upon the Act,	_


Samuel William Jacobs: Did he not?


Arthur Meighen: No, and the Act passed without division. What is the use of discussing the Naturalization Act on the second reading of this Bill? The Naturalization Act is passed. The hon. member had better bring in a Bill to amend it.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is in keeping with the peculiar mentality of my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: It is true.


Samuel William Jacobs: Because I did not call for a division of the House on that Act I am deemed to have acquiesced in everything the Government did in that respect. The hon. gentleman must remember that on two or three occasions when the Bill was in committee we did everything we could to point out what would result from the policy of allowing the British Government to come into our country and dictate to us what we should do.


Arthur Meighen: Why does not the hon. gentleman bring in an amendment?


Ernest Lapointe: ! Because the Prime Alin-ister promised that he would see to it that it should he amended after a conference with the Imperial authorities.


Arthur Meighen: We can only amend it in this House.. Bring in a Bill.


Samuel William Jacobs: 'It will be remembered
that Lincoln' said before the Civil War that no nation could exist half slave and half free. That is the condition that exists in this country. We have half our people free and the other half are deprived of the rights of citizens. That is what this Act proposes to do.


Arthur Meighen: Not this Act.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am referring to the Naturalization Act, this Act and the Women Voters Act of 1918 all in conjunction.


Arthur Meighen: This Act does not disfranchise anybody.


Samuel William Jacobs: Will the hon. gentleman
tell me in what respect it affects the Naturalization Act which we passed last year?


Arthur Meighen: It does not affect it at all. I am saying to the hon gentleman that 494
if he complains of the Naturalization Act he should bring in an amendment embodying his views, and submit that to the sense of Parliament instead of criticising the Naturalization Act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order; we had better
proceed according to the rules of the House.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.
Some hon. MEMBERS : Oh, oh. '


Arthur Meighen: The reeaon I say "hear, hear" is that the >hon. gentleman should be held to the discussion of this Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With reference to the
point of order I may say that it is somewhat difficult to disassociate the Naturalization Act from the consideration of this Bill. It is no doubt true that the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Air. Jacobs) has gone very far afield but there is a remote connection between >
the two measures. I hope that the hon. member will not proceed too far along this line.
AH. LAPOINTE:	That is what the minister himself did this afternoon.


Samuel William Jacobs: I would like to say a word or two in regard to the manner in which passports are affected by this Naturalization Act and by this Bill when it refuses, to give aliens the right to British citizenship. No person but a British subject has tire right to take out a passport in Canada to travel abroad. For example, a German who has been in this country for ten years and has not been naturalized has no rights whatever as a citizen of Canada.	; /
An hon. AIEA1BER: Order.	:


Samuel William Jacobs: If he requires a passport in order to travel, and if he is not naturalized, where is he going to get that passport? Air. Speaker, a man in that position who has lived in Canada for nine and a half years can only get a passport to travel by applying to Berlin. Actually a man who has been a citizen of Canada for that period of time can only obtain the right to travel abroad when the Berlin Government wishes to give it to him; the Canadian Government has no right whatever to do anything for him.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would ask the hon.
member how he applies this argument to the Bill under discussion?


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the anomalies, the absurdities, the grotesqueness of this Bill. It is practically impossible to discuss this Bill, in its ref-

*erences to naturalization, without referring to the Naturalization Act. I am attacking the Government not only because of the terms of the Bill now before the House, but the provisions in that measure with respect-to naturalization. They deprive us of the Naturalization Act under which we worked successfully for so many years. I charge that upon the Government and I say it is because of the fact that these people who are affected not only suffer the loss of their vote,.but will be unable to obtain the most elementary rights of citizenship.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have concluded what I desired to say on that phase of the subject but I shall have something further to say when the Bill goes into committee. I was not in the House yesterday when the Acting Solicitor General stated that he understood some one had made the remark that there was a joker in the Bill but that for himself he wished to say that he knew of no such joker. There may be no joker in the Bill but there are in it a few jokes which I have endeavoured to point out to the House. I trust that before the Bill emerges from committee we will have full opportunity of dealing further with it, and that after the anvil pounding which we may have to bring to bear upon the measure it will be something less objectionable than it is in its present shape.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I do not intend to occupy the time of the House at any length upon the present occasion. I purpose making such remarks as I deem to be necessary, when the House is in committee and we can review the respective claiises. However the Acting Solicitor General was kind enough'when he presented the Bill to say that if anybody could discover grave difficulties in its application he would be prepared to accept amendments and remedy the defects so discovered. Well, Sir, taking that statement in conjunction with the one just made by the hon. gentleman who preceded me as to there being a joker in the Bill, I would like to call the minister's attention to what might possibly be the joker in question. To-day we have heard a number of hon. gentlemen speak about the rights of different nationalities in connection with this Bill and the Naturalization Act. I had hoped that I would see some hon. gentleman opposite rise and speak in the name of the Democracy of England, and show how the poor Englishman is being treated under this Bill. So far, however, no one has taken that point, and therefore it falls to my lot to draw the minister's attention to the fact that under this Bill harsh treatment is 
meted out to residents in Englond. If the minister will kindly read section 38 of the Bill he will find the following clause:	-
Except as in this Act otherwise provided any British subject, male or female, who is of the full age of twenty-one years, may be a candidate at a Dominion election.
That means that any gentleman living, say, in England, may be a candidate in our Federal elections-there is absolutely nothing to prevent him. But if that gentleman living in England should take it into his head to come over to this country and offer himself for election and ask the electors to refrain from voting for him or to vote for him, or should he have the hardihood to advance reasons why the electors should vote for him, then he falls immediately under the provisions of section 11 which the Government apparently overlooked when they drafted the Bill and commits an indictable offence, which seems hardly fair. Let us read section 11:
Any person, not being an elector, who resides without Canada and who. to secure the election of any candidate, canvasses for votes or in any way endeavours to induce voters to vote for any candidate at an election, or to refrain from voting, is guilty of an indictable offence against this Act punishable as in this Act provided.
The Minister of the Interior being a shrewd and very capable lawyer, will see right away, or I am a very dull lawyer, that any gentleman residing, say in the city of London or in any part of England, may under section 38 become a candidate for this House, tout if he attempts to say a word as to why he should be elected, then anybody in the country who wishes to bring a charge against him for so doing, can land him in jail. Now, hon. gentlemen have spoken about the Austrians, about the Germans, and about men of different nationalities. I do not claim any great intimacy with the Germans or with the Austrians, which may be my great misfortune, but I do know something about England and about Englishmen, and I am a great admirer of the democracy of England. I am a greater admirer of the democracy of England than I am of the laws of England, and I believe this to be a case in which the Englishman should get fair play. I bring this point to the attention of the Government and I say further that whereas I have found in the perusal of this Bill innumerable clauses that are jokes, and mean when the House resolves itself into Committee to move to amend some of them; in the meantime the Acting Solicitor 'General

should see to it that the Englishman is properly treated by this Bill.


Ernest Lapointe: And that he gets justice.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: And that he gets justice.


Lucien Cannon: 
Mr. GUTHRIE:: If my hon. friend will permit me, Mr. Speaker? I had a list of those names before mo as I spoke yesterday a,n<! the name of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was certainly on my list after that of Sir John Macdonald. I thought I mentioned it, and I note it in Hansard to-day.
/


Lucien Cannon: I accept with great
pleasure the explanation given by the Acting Solicitor General. I knew that it would be sufficient for me to draw his attention to that omission for him to repair it.
The second omission, Mr. Speaker, which I noticed in the remarks of the hon. Acting Solicitor General was that of a spirit of high statesmanship when he came to discuss the amendments to the electoral law of Canada introduced by the Laurier Government in 1908. The hon. gentleman told us that in 1908 he had supported amendments to the then Franchise Bill, and he gave us the reason why those amendments had been brought in. The way I wish to answer that part of my hon. friend's remarks is as follows: Either the vote given by the Acting Solicitor General in 1908 was a thoroughly honest vote

and I have no doubt that it was-and if such was the case I do not think that the Acting Solicitor General of Canada, speaking as such in the House of Commons, when introducing a Bill of such great moment as the Bill he introduced yesterday, should try to ridicule the Government of 1908 and their motives for

having afforded him the opportunity of giving a good vote. Or, Mr. Speaker, the ease may be the opposite, and the vote given by the hon. Acting Solicitor General in 1908 might not have been as good as I think it was. In such a case I think my hon. friend should not boast about it, because if he does we might have our doubts as to whether he is sincere-he must be- but we might have our doubts as to his sincerity on the present occasion.
The hon. Acting Solicitor General told us yesterday: "If there are any vices that can be remedied, if there is any flaw that can be removed, just point them out and I will be pleased to consider your suggestions." It is my intention to study most carefully and seriously the Bill when it comes in Committee of this House. And why so? Because the idea that the Acting Solicitor General may have of a vice or of a flaw may not be exactly the idea that I myself hold. When I consider the Votes and Proceedings of the Seventh Session of the Twelfth Parliament, that is, the session of 1917, I notice to my great surprise, although the hon. Acting Solicitor General yesterday afternoon told us that he had always fought in the fore ranks of the Liberal party, that during' that session he left his party and voted in favour of the War-times Election Act. Therefore II conclude that although the Acting Solicitor General yesterday was very generous in his remarks, words in his mouth might not have the same meaning that they would have in the mouth of a leader of the Liberal party who always had remained faithful to the principles of the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, a gentleman made a speech yesterday-he represents the county of Fron-tenac. I do not wish to take the time of the House in commenting on the speech made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), but I may tell him once and for all that whenever he attacks the province of Quebec, whenever he attacks our traditions, our aspirations and our ideals, whenever also he attacks our intellectual standing in the House of Commons or in the country, he reminds me very strongly, Mr. Speaker, of those niggers in Africa who complain that the sun shines too brightly in their eyes.
Mr.. SPEAKER:	The hon. member will
recall that on the occasion in question the member for Frontenac was asked to withdraw that remark, and he did so. I do not know that any useful purpose can be served by reviving the incident.
[Mr. Cannon.f


Lucien Cannon: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
The House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-short title.
Ernest Lapointe: Is it the intention to take up any of the contentious clauses of the Bill this evening?


Hugh Guthrie: No, we can run over a few of the .purely formal and non-contentious clauses. If there is any objection to a clause, it- can stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest that this first clause pass now, but in view of the fact that many members will not be present this evening I believe it will be more satisfactory to the House generally if we proceed in committee at a subsequent meeting. This evening we could take up some of the other Government measures, as suggested by my hon. friend (Sir George Foster) last evening.


George Green Foster: We shall pass this one section. We shall come back after six o'clock in committee, but we shall not continue very long in committee on this Bill, and then we shall take up some other Government Bills.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
At six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 23, to incorporate Canadian American Fire Insurance Company.-'Mr. Griesbach.
Bill No. 33, to incorporate International Loan Company.-Mr. Blake.
Bill No. 34, respecting the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company.-Mr. Archambault.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 12, respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When the committee rose at six o'clock, section one had been adopted.
On section two-Definitions.


Hugh Guthrie: The majority of the
definitions that are to be found in section

2 are the same definitions, practically though not identically, as are to be found in our former election law. Some new phrases are introduced in this section. I think perhaps it might be well for us to consider the section subsection by subsection. In subsection (a) there is a mistake. The clause "advance poll" as meaning a poll held "as by section ninety-nine of this Act provided." I move that subsection (a) be amended by striking out the word ninety-nine" and inserting the words "one hundred" in lieu thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. TRAHAN:: I think it was understood this afternoon that consideration of contentious clauses would be deferred for the time being, and any definitions that have a bearing on such clauses should, I think, be also postponed. I have read section 100, to which I take exception on many grounds, and inasmuch as subsection (a) of section 2 has reference to that section I would suggest that we let it stand for the moment.


Hugh Guthrie: It is merely a change from the word "ninety-nine" to the words "one hundred." This is only a matter of referring to the clause by its proper number.


Arthur Trahan: If later on section 100 were not adopted, then subclause (a) of section 2 would serve no purpose. It would be useless. I suggest therefore that as it has a bearing on section 100 we suspend its consideration.


Hugh Guthrie: If there is any objection to the adoption of this sdbsection I have no desire to press it.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: There is a confusion between the French and the English versions of the Bill. Subsection (a) in the French version speaks of "agent officiel," and in the English version we are discussing "advance poll."


Hugh Guthrie: Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I move that the whole of section 2 stand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Section stands.
On section 3-repeal:
Hugh Guthrie: This is a pretty general clause and on referring to schedule 4 on the last page of the printed Bill I think it will be seen that we have included there every Act of tliis Parliament which affects Dominion elections or anything in relation to them. The intention is to repeal everything.


Arthur Trahan: In section 3 reference is-made to a certain number of Orders in Council; they are all repealed. But the schedule Refers only to the statutes. I would suggest that a list of the Orders in Council repealed should be put in the schedule.


Hugh Guthrie: That would be at variance with the practice of this or any other House. The statute does not recognize the repeal of the Orders in Council because they in general terms are referred to in section
3.	The repeal of all statutes would necessarily include all Orders in Council whether that section so stated it or not. It is under the authority, of a statute that the Orders in Council are passed. When we put a schedule of the statutes in the Bill I think that includes everything else.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I would like to ask the minister if there is anything in the Act which does away with, the provision which we had incorporated in the law after considerable trouble* by which offences set out in this Act, instead of being the subject of indictment only, can be proceeded with by information before an ordinary magistrate and tried in the ordinary way. This is simply designed to have the law in general vindicated without any special or direct reference to the election, but it will be plain to anybody that it has a distinct bearing on an election case. If I lay an information against some person for the infraction of the Election Act, and have that dealt with by a magistrate and have the man fined, it is quite plain that there is something * that has transpired under oath which would enable anybody to upset the election.


Hugh Guthrie: | I think we will have to wait till we come to these clauses. We are now dealing with the general repeal clause.
I may say, however, for the information of the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) that this Bill does recognize both kinds of prosecutions. The more serious offences are dealt with by way of indictment and the' less serious by summary conviction. I thas been suggested that perhaps it would be better to deal with all prosecutions under this Act by summary conviction. That is a matter that can be determined when we get to those clauses, which are about the middle of the Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was not here when the explanation was given by the minister, but I understand that his position is that repeal- ' ing the statutes repeals all Orders in Council. I do not go that far. I think rather the idea is that the Order in Council is made

under the statute, that certain rights are extended under that Order in Council, and that although the statute itself may be re-[DOT] pealed the Orders in Council stand. I do not think it falls to the ground merely because the statute does.


Hugh Guthrie: For anything heretofore done under the Order in Council, it stands just as the statute stands for any Act heretofore done under the authority of the statute, but for all future purposes both statute and Order in Council go.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister says so.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the best I can do.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If he will take the general interpretation Act' in the revised statutes he will find that the force of Orders in Council is more extended.


Hugh Guthrie: As I understand, without referring to the Interpretation Act, the effect of an Order in Council is precisely the same as the effect of a statute. It has the same force and effect as a statute-no more and no less. It has to be passed under the authority of some statute. Until the repeal of the Act anything done under the provisions of the Order in Council is perfectly valid, and continue to be valid, but on the repeal of the statute everything goes and no further Order in Council could be passed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I quite understand that no further order could be passed by virtue of the statute, but there is vitality, effect and force in the order already carried out under the statute.


Hugh Guthrie: To make the matter
clear we have included in section 3 an express repeal of all Orders in Council. It cannot be doubtful under section 3.
On section 4-notices, how given:


Jacques Bureau: It is rather a wide discretion to give an election officer when you . say that he may advertise or give a notice in such a manner as he may see fit? All notices ought to be given for a purpose but this might mean giving no notice at all. In . every other case where a notice is required, the mode by which the notice shall be given is provided for, whether it be by a poster in a public place or otherwise.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend should
read line 3 of the section.


Jacques Bureau: (reading):
When any election officer is by this Act authorized or required to give a public notice
and no special mode of notification is indicated-


Hugh Guthrie: In every case the Act 'says what the notice shall be.


Arthur Trahan: The clause is useless, then.


Hugh Guthrie: This is the clause from the old Act to cover any unforeseen case. It has been in the old law for many years although we have changed the language to a very slight extent. The old Act had the words " as he thinks best calculated"- not very elegant language in the first place. We have made an improvement in the language as it appears in section 4. It may be that some case requiring notice has not been provided for. I think, speaking from memory, every case is substantially provided for.


Jacques Bureau: Strike out the section, then.


Hugh Guthrie: No, because there may be cases unprovided for.


Jacques Bureau: There ought not to be.


Hugh Guthrie: As we go on with the Bill I think we will make every point clear. In the meantime, I do not think the clause should be struck out.


Mr. POWER:: In the course of the last election a case occurred where this clause might have been enforced. The returning officer in my riding refused to give me a list of the enumerators. I telegraphed to Mr. O'Connor at the time, and he stated that although there was no law on the subject I should be given the list. In spite of that, the returning officer refused to give me the list. I had to employ people to find out who the enumerators were. I imagine that would be a case where this section would apply.


Hugh Guthrie: No, this has reference to public notice. However, if there is any contention I will let it stand.


Jacques Bureau: We will go through the Bill and when we come to another clause Vhere notice is to be given, we can provide the mode by which notice shall be given.


Hugh Guthrie: In all involved acts there is usually inserted a general clause to cover anything that might be unforeseen.
Mr.,TRAHAN: These general clauses are always dangerous.
Mr. GUTHRIE': It is more dangerous to have no general clause.


John Hampden Burnham: I would like to impress upon the minister the fact that for any public notice, especially if it is a general one, a handbill is a very dangerous proceeding. The whole principle of giving notice in important affairs of a public character imquestionably is to post something in the public office of the municipality wherever that may be. Every city, every township, has a place where certain noticeb for the public benefit must be posted, and really I think the least the returning officer, or any other election officer, can do, is to post up there within a certain specified time the notice which he desires the public to take cognizance of. Because, to leave it to a handbill simply means that the handbill may be thrown away, and that be the end of it.


Hugh Guthrie: IE my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) would examine the Act he would not make suggestions of that kind. As I say, so far as I know, and I think I know the Bill pretty well, every case where notice is necessary is specially provided for. With respect to anything the returning officer. the deputy returning officer, the registrar, or the judge has to do there is an express -way of giving notice by posting, by registration, by publication in the newspapers. For every single case there is a specific provision. But it may be that same notice will be required that has not been provided for, and if so, rather than have no provision, we have a general clause. Take any important Act in the country, take the Municipal Act, and it is declared that in all other cases not otherwise provided for the advertisement shall be so-and-so. Under any general legislation occasion may arise when notice has to be given and there is nothing in the law which provides for it. This is intended only for cases not otherwise provided for. [DOT]


John Hampden Burnham: With all due deference to the minister and his reasoning I do not see why the analogy in the Bill itself should not be followed in a case not provided for. It is quite possible that something or other of an important nature may arise, not provided for by Parliament, which the election officer would treat as if it were of no importance whatever. He could give notice where it suited him, by handbill or othei* wise. It might be extremely bad whether and nobody would know where to go to find out about these things. Above everything else in the world in the matter of an election it is most important that a candidate or his agent should know what is going on by simply visiting a certain office-going
[.Mr. Guthrie.)
to a certain place and looking at the notice board to see if any new notice has been posted up. That is a precaution it is very easy to take. I am not at all convinced by the minister that because there may be some things unprovided, therefore the analogy in the very Bill itself should not be followed.
Mr. H. A. MAlCKIE: I agree with the clause and will give the committee an example of where it will be useful. Supposing you wanted to get a notice from Edmonton to Fort McMurray. There is no way in which notice can be given to a place three hundred miles away except by wire. Now supposing you wanted to give a notice to say to Fort Vermilion. There is no way in wdiich you can cover the distance of three hundred miles except by sending a telegram to Peace River, and from there you will have to go in three hundred miles on horseback. If there is not a general clause by which you may use some discretion to get over those distances in our country publication will be of no use. This clause provides for a method and gives the returning officer discretion to do what he thinks best under all these circumstances. The clause is quite an important one and should stand as it is because of the great distances we have to contend with in the western country.


John Hampden Burnham: I would say in reply
to that, it is very easy for the man who has authority to send the telegram to say " Please post this telegram in the- usual place for the municipality."


Mr. MACKIE:: There is no such place.


John Hampden Burnham: If there is no such
place then all I have to say is that whilst the principle would be violated there is no question it is not of much importance. I can assure the hon. gentleman however that in more thickly settled places, in cases that are not so extreme as the hon. member has just spoken of, it would be an exceedingly dangerous thing, if a candidate had a hostile returning officer or election agents who were unfavourably disposed to him or were themselves unscrupulous.


Henry Arthur Mackie: In the case of Fort McMurray the only places we have for posting of notices are' the Hudson Bay Company's store and the office of the North Bay Transportation Company. The same at Fort Vermilion and also at Wabasca. The only places there are the Hudson Bay Agency and the Roman Catholic church. There" is no use in talking about Sending

out notices in the western country, we have not got the facilities for it.


John Hampden Burnham: I am talking about
municipalities.
Section stands.
On section 5-printed documents to bear name, etc., of printer:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This clause is the same as the one in the old Act, is it not?


Hugh Guthrie: Under the old Act the
penalty for non-compliance with the provision was $200 and costs or six months.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
penalty for violation of the provision in this case?


Hugh Guthrie: It is much more serious.


Air. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Would printing
cover typewriting?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know. It has been held in the province of Ontario that typewriting is printing. The clauses in regard to penalty will be found on page 67 commencing at section 84:
Any person who is guilty of any indictable offence against this Act is liable on indictment or on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and costs of prosecution or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, or to both such fine and costs and such imprisonment, and if the fine and costs imposed are not paid forthwith (in case only a fine and costs are imposed) or are not paid before the expiration of the term of imprisonment imposed (in case imprisonment as well as fine and costs is imposed) to imprisonment with or without hard labour for such term (or such further term) as such fine and costs or either of them remain unpaid, not exceeding three months.
With respect to non-indictable offences the fines are less. They are dealt with by section 85.
On section 6-Removing notices forbidden.-Copy of subsection 1 to be printed on documents posted up.


Hugh Guthrie: If memory serves me right that is the old clause unchanged.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there any reason for repeating the penalty, of this section? It is all set out in section 84.


Hugh Guthrie: I would think that the provisions of section 84 applied to any offence under section 6. The latter section was taken bodily from the former election law, section 250A.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It seems to be needlessly encumbering the Statute.


Arthur Trahan: But this section must be published.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, there is some necessity for it. It has to be printed as a notice, and the notice would have to include the penalty. That is the object in view, I suppose.


Jacques Bureau: Otherwise there would be no offence.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Oaths, how administered.- Gratuitous Administration.
Air. DAVIS:: I suggest that " police magistrate " be added there. I have an unpleasant recollection of an election that I lost in Manitoba because those words were not in the Act.


Hugh Guthrie: The section now includes " a judge of any court, a notary public, a justice of the peace or a commissioner for taking affidavits having authority or jurisdiction within the place where the oath or affirmation is administered." Personally, I see no objection to including " police magistrate." If the words are to be included I would insert them after " justice of the peace " in line 33.


Air. MICHAUD:: While we are adding a few words to this section I would suggest that we also add " stipendiary magistrate." He is not a justice qf the peace.


Hugh Guthrie: I think a stipendiary magistrate is a judge, but I see no objection to adding the words, " stipendiary magistrate, police magistrate," after the word " peace " in the thirty-third line.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I think it is worth while to have the French version before us while we are reading that section. The English version reads, " having authority or jurisdiction." Why is it that in the French version it is, " ayant autorite et jurisdiction." That is not a correct translation.


Hugh Guthrie: I can hardly be held responsible for the translation into French -I wish I could be. I am glad my hon. friend has mentioned that point. I think both versions should be the same.


Jacques Bureau: In the interpretation
clause, Air. Chairman, the word " judge " is defined. The definition is, ' judge ' includes chief justice." I would have less doubt about a chief justice being a judge

than I would about a stipendiary magistrate being one. If a chief justice is a judge, the puisne judges have not got much judgeship about th,em.	.


John Howard Sinclair: It is sometimes difficult to get-a justice of the peace in a polling booth when a deputy returning officer requires to be sworn in. Can the oath be administered by the poll clerk?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not sure on that point, Mr. Chairman. I will look it up.


Mr. J. H SINCLAIR:: I see no reason why it should not be done It would be a great convenience if the statute provided for it.


Hugh Guthrie: It is only for the swearing in of officers that you want power given to the poll clerk to administer oaths?


John Howard Sinclair: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: The deputy returning officer is sworn in by the returning officer.


John Howard Sinclair: The returning officer, we will say, is the sheriff of the county and resides in the county town. The county may be a hundred miles long. My hon. friend surely does not mean that all the deputy returning officers must come before the returning officer to be sworn in? At any rate, it has not been the practice in the past.	[DOT]


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think that the Act as drawn states before whom ' the deputy shall be sworn. Section 25 provides:
Every deputy returning officer shall before acting1 as such take the oath in form H.
I assume that would be an oath taken before any person authorized by this Act to administer oath.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Suppose a returning officer residing in Edmonton appoints deputies at Peace River, Colling River, Me-Murray, Mackay, Fort Oliipewyan and Fort Smith. These points cover a distance oi several hundred miles, and at none of these places is there a notary public or justice of the peace. If you happen to'find a member of the Mounted Police at his post you may get him to swear somebody as commissioner. But at the last election I endeavoured to get the Provincial Government to appoint a man a commissioner and send him along with the ballot boxes to swear the deputies as he went along the route. The Provincial Government was not favourable or kind to me and at first I was not able to succeed. However I took the matter up with Mr. O'Connor

by wire and he got in touch with the provincial authorities and they finally yielded and had a man appointed who could go about and do this. It would be impossible for the returning officer to do the work himself. I would like to see some provision in the Act under'which it would be possible for the authorities at Ottawa to appoint someone a commissioner to swear in deputies or other officers in these far away places.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 25 does not provide that the deputy returning officer shall be sworn in before any particular person; consequently he can he sworn in under the provisions of section 7. The returning officer can swear in the poll clerk, and the poll clerk, when sworn in, can swear in the deputy returning officer. Would that remove the difficulty?


Henry Arthur Mackie: No. In this stretch of country five hundred miles long there is no person to administer an oath, although there are six or eight ballot boxes and, consequently, six polls. The returning [DOT]officer cannot accompany the men with the boxes and swear the deputies, so we have to gelt a commissioner, and that commissioner must be appointed by the local authorities. If the local authorities are not well disposed toward you, you may not get one at all, and the returning officer will be forced to take a trip of perhaps three hundred miles in order to administer this oath.


Hugh Guthrie: As the Bill is drawn,
. every deputy returning officer before acting as such must take the oath. The question .raised by my hon. friend is:	How is the
deputy returning officer himself to be sworn? He cannot act until he is sworn; I see the difficulty where very great distances have to be covered and there are very few commissioners. When we come to section 25 I shall be glad if my hon. friend will remind me of that point.


John Howard Sinclair: What does the
Acting Solicitor General say to my suggestion that the poll clerk be authorized to administer the oath to the deputy returning
officer?


Hugh Guthrie: The poll clerk is appointed under section 26, but before he can act he must be sworn. We all assume that the first man sworn is the deputy returning .officer; the deputy himself cannot appoint a poll clerk until he is sworn.


John Howard Sinclair: Then the deputy
.must go before a justice of the peace to be sworn.


Hugh Guthrie: He must go before someone authorized by this Act to administer an oath; then he can swear his poll clerk.


Mr. BUTTS:: Is there any provision in
the Act imposing a penalty upon any person with jurisdiction who refuses to administer an oath? We have had numerous cases in Nova Scotia where magistrates have refused to swear in a man, even for the voters' list.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, there is a provision in that regard somewhere between sections 80 and 90.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 8-penalty for inducing persons to make false oath:


Hugh Guthrie: The former sections covering this subject were 273 and 274; they have been combined in one. The former section read, " Every candidate who," and so on; this section says, " Every person ,who " does so-and-so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-executory contracts void:
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Would this clause cover,
for instance, a contract made toy a. candidate with a newspaper or an advertising concern for advertising?


Hugh Guthrie: I think it would. An
executory contract is a future contract uncompleted by payment, delivery or execution. The purpose of the section is to void promises made before an election to be implemented after.' It has been the law of the land for many years.
Mr. .POWER:	There have been things
in the law.of the land for many years that I think are wrong. We have laid down as crimes things which are not crimes. Why force a man to commit a crime?! I suppose every member of the House has at one time or another made a contract with a newspaper or an advertising agency for advertising-


Hugh Guthrie: That is not an executory contract. An executory contract is for something to be performed and paid for in the future.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What about the terms o'
the undertaking?


Hugh Guthrie: If it be an executory
contract, the amount cannot be recovered. There are in this law provisions for the recovery of debts incurred during an election; there is a time within which an account must be rendered, and the like Those provisions
will be found towards the end of the Bill. There is a general provision to make void every promise of an executory nature which is not to be performed before the election, promises which used to be made for the purpose of securing political influence here, there and the other place. I think there is a strong moral ground for retaining this section.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is a promise or undertaking to pay, after the election, if one be elected. I maintain that we should not void it; there is nothing wrong in promising that you will pay a newspaper only if you be elected.


Hugh Guthrie: The case of a newspaper is, an executory contract, so that it is a contract completed by execution. It may be postponed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-contributions for political purposes:
Mr. PROULX:: Is not subsection 2 going too far? It reads:
Any company or association violating the provisions of this section.
Some shareholders might not know that the directors were making contributions. The word "wilfully" or the word "knowingly" should be inserted.


Hugh Guthrie: This is a good old section passed after careful consideration. I think, in the year 1908, and possibly it was in the old Act of 1898. It is considered a very salutary proviso in our law. I would not open the door in this respect if I could avoid doing so.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But do companies contribute towards election expenses?


Hugh Guthrie: They cannot under this clause.	*


Lucien Cannon: Why limit the clause to
companies? Why not extend it to persons? It might be easy for a man connected with a big company to make a large contribution, and that would be just as wrong as if the contribution were made by the company.


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Lucien Cannon: Why not?


Hugh Guthrie: An individual has a
heart and soul and mind of his own, and he has a right to vote and can lawfully exercise political influence. The case is different with a company. An incorporated company is not a person within the meaning of

this legislation. The (purpose of the section, [DOT]as my hon. friend probably knows, was to get rid o-f a system that was growing up in the * United States and in Canada, which was very objectionable in its results. The great .corporations were exercising a large amount of influence on the political situation in this country and in the United States, heavy contributions being given by the corporations as such. Individuals might think twice before they would spend their own money; but when it was looked on as a matter of corporate funds and the result of .the election might possibly help the general financial standing of the company; and ultimately favourable legislation might, be passed by the successful party, huge contributions began to flow, not so much in this country as in the United States. But the time came in Canada when, in the wisdom of .this Parliament, it became necessary to check that evil, and I think it has been fairly well checked in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, oil. I do -not think so.	,


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) seems to smile at that.


Ernest Lapointe: He is doubtful about it.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not, know the system that prevails in the province of Quebec, but in Ontario and elsewhere the evil has been pretty well checked; and if it has not been checked in Quebec, let us devise legislation that will check it.


Ernest Lapointe: Was that, what my ihon. friend told us after the election of 1911 when he came back to the House?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not remember ever discussing the question of contributions by corporations in this House, and I did not tell any one anything about it. I think this is the first time in twenty years that I have ever opened my mouth on the subject. But if there be any doubt as to what is going^on in this respect, let us have a law broad enough to stop i't, and if the present enactment be not broad enough, let us improve it. I would not suggest weakening it in any way, 1 would suggest strengthening it.


Lucien Cannon: I was suggesting to my hon. friend that the law should be broadened by adding the word "person." He mentioned Quebec. Naturally I am more familiar with conditions existing in Quebec than with conditions existing in the
(Mr. Guthrie.]
other provinces, but in Quebec, and probably in all the other provinces, individuals doing very large business now do not do their business under their individual names any more, but under corporate names. Most people do that. Therefore, individuals who have in reality the greatest interest and sometimes all the interest in the companies are doing business under corporate names in our province-and I think the same is true of most of the provinces. These gentlemen naturally will not, according to this clause,
9 p.m. contribute as a corporation, but they may well do so individually under their personal names, and that is not supposed to be an indictable offence, although the result is exactly the same in the end.


Hugh Guthrie: They cannot use corporate money for the purpose.


Lucien Cannon: But the corporate money is their own money.
Mr. [DOT] GUTHRIE: I never before heard that it was considered as wrong in this or in any other country for a man, out of his private means, to contribute to cause which is desired to succeed in an election. I never heard it suggested before that such a thing was an offence or wrong in principle or morals or in any other respect. But it has always been considered, to say the least, as a matter of doubtful propriety, to use corporate funds in an election. Under this clause an individual cannot, as a shareholder, or officer, or attorney, or agent of a company., contribute any corporate money. The company itself cannot contribute. But I have never yet heard it suggested that an individual should not be permitted, out of his private money, to contribute some of his money for the success of the cause which he happens to have at heart.


Mr. MAHARG:: Is this clause exactly the same as the clause in the old Act?


Hugh Guthrie: With the exception of two or three words, it is. '


John Archibald Maharg: Would the minister mind giving us those exceptions?


Hugh Guthrie: The clause in the old Act read as follows:


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is the minister referring to the Act of 1911?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I am referring to the Act of 1908. If I recollect the matter

properly, the only change in the clause is in the first words. Tire first words of the old section read:
Any company or association.
And the first words in the present clause read:
No unincorporated company or association and no incorporated company or association.


John Archibald Maharg: Does this mean that no group of individuals, whether large or small, can contribute to or secure funds in any way for the .purpose of the election campaign of a candidate?	[DOT]


Hugh Guthrie: I think that is practically the effect of the section. No business men can group themselves together as a company or association, whether incorporated or not, to contribute funds towards an election campaign.


John Archibald Maharg: According to the section no group of labour men, returned soldiers or others-
Some hen. MEMBERS:	Farmers.


John Archibald Maharg: -can group themselves together, unless they get incorporated, to assist financially in the election of a candidate. Could this be done under the old Act?


Hugh Guthrie: The object aimed at is to prevent men from grouping together and using their joint contribution for the purpose of assisting in an election campaign.


John Archibald Maharg: What about their individual contributions? -


Hugh Guthrie: An individual contribution would not be viewed as unlawful, but if a number of men joined together in the form of an association for the purpose of using their joint contributions towards a campaign it would be unlawful under this Act.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the same
purpose was accomplished with the section as it stood in the old Act. Why make people suspicious that this section has been drafted in a different way with the object of reaching them? What is tRe object of changing the words of the two first lines?


Hugh Guthrie: The only reason I know for the change was that it would prevent men from grouping themselves together for the purpose of influencing an election by financial contributions.
It seems that this is one of the clauses that may be regarded as contentious, and
in view of my statement this afternoon perhaps it might be as well for us to postpone its further consideration for the time being. I would therefore move to let the section stand.	'


Ernest Lapointe: Does the minister
think that individuals could group together under the old Act?


Hugh Guthrie: I think they could. The only groups prohibited under the former Act were those who incorporated.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: They could not group
together under the old Act.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been pointed out to me that my interpretation of the former law was incorrect. The former Act provided that " no company or association other than one incorporated for political purposes .alone shall " etc. That would cover a group of association just as under the present Act. The draughsinan of the present Bill, Mr. W. F. O'Connor is, I may say, an experienced man, and he changed the language into " no unincorporated company or association " etci


John Howard Sinclair: 
Hugh Guthrie: There is a provision. I have not the exact section, but it is the same provision as in the former law, which requires that a detailed statement of all contributions, payments, loans, advances, deposits or promises of money made on behalf of the candidate, shall be given to the agent or returning officer for publication.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think this section might very well stand. But before leaving it I would say that, it being mainly intended, as I interpret it, to prevent business corporations from contributing to campaign funds, it has my hearty approval.' I feel that it cannot be made too exacting. In order to make perfectly clear the purpose of the section, I think it would be an improvement if one or two words were added to subsection 2. This subsection reads:

Every director, shareholder, officer, attorney or agent of any company or association violating the provisions of this section
*
is guilty of an indictable offence, etc.
I should like to see inserted, after the word " agent," the words " or any person on behalf of any company or association."


Hugh Guthrie: In law the term "agent" includes any person acting on behalf of another. However, I note the suggestion of the hon. member.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My desire is to have it made perfectly clear that the law prohibits business corporations from contributing to political funds, and I should like to see the section amended to that extent.
Section stands.
On section 11-Persons not electors and not residents of Canada forbidden to canvas:


Hugh Guthrie: The change here is in reference to the penalty. Under the former Act the penalty was from $100 to $200, or six months' imprisonment. Now it will be an indictable offence punishable by fine up to $2,000.


Lucien Cannon: What is the reason for this clause?


Hugh Guthrie: It is fairly explicit; it is a clause adopted by Parliament in 1908. I do not know that I can give any better reason than the language in the section. I do not think I could give the reason for it better than it is given in the language of the section:
Any person, not being an elector, who resides without Canada and who, to secure the election of any candidate, canvasses for votes or in any way endeavours to induce voters to vote for any candidate at an election, or to refrain from ' voting, is guilty of an indictable offence against this Act punishable as in this Act provided.
The object was to prevent eonvassing by the foreigner who has no right or business in this country, who is not a native of Can. ada, and who only takes part in an election as a paid agent. A man who has no stake in the country will take a desperate chance that a citizen of the country would not take, and then skips over the border when the election is over so that he cannot be reached by our criminal law.


Lucien Cannon: Take an election in which we would have imperial preference discussed in Canada, would a person from Great Britain be debarred?


Hugh Guthrie: That is not a foreign
country.


William Stevens Fielding: It says anybody who
resides outside of Canada.


Lucien Cannon: People of that class will be debarred from taking part in an election. Suppose we should discuss at a future election the question of reciprocity and a prominent man from the United States would like to address a meeting in Montreal and tell the people there what his views were upon that question; this section would bar him out of our country.


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is to be " at an election," and " at an election " is defined in section 2 as including:
The period after the issue of the writ for an election, or after the dissolution of Parliament or the occurrence of a vacancy in consequence of v-hich a writ for an election is eventually issued, until the elected candidate is returned as elected.
People who came out from Great Britain or other parts of the world to discuss public questions could not be very well be said to be coming here for the purpose of securing the election of any candidate. They would not be canvassing for votes at an election.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly they would.


Hugh Guthrie: I can only say to my
hon. friend that I do not know the exact origin of this section but my hon. friends across the way who then sat in the Government when this Act was put upon the statute book can probably give the reason for it better than I can. I admit the propriety of it, I see good reason for it and I do not think it is open to the narrow interpretation that the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) seeks to put upon it.


Lucien Cannon: I am perfectly willing to accept any interpretation that the minister can give, but that is how I interpret the clause, and I think my interpretation is right.


Hugh Guthrie: I think my hon.
friend's interpretation is absolutely wrong. The Act says that the person must be here canvassing and that he must be here at an election.


Lucien Cannon: "endeavours to induce"-


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I grant that. The object was to keep out a person who had not a vote in this country and who/had no interest in the election. The real object that the section was intended to achieve was to keep out stragglers from the other side who came in here, hired by some political party or other and who, after having done their nefarious work, quit the coun-

try, went to the other side and we were not able to catch them.


Mr. MOWAT:: If the section were wider than the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) says it would not do any harm, because the words are " in any way endeavour to induce voters to vote for any candidate at an election." That means during the period intervening between th% issue of the writ and the polling day,. I do not see why persons from outside should come into Canada anyway.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I called the attention of
the House to this section this afternoon. The hon. Minister of Militia not having been here at the time, the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) took note of' the objection, but apparently the Minister of Militia has not received any intimation of it. I will repeat in substance, very shortly, the objection I have to this clause. By section 11 it is provided that:
Any person, not being an elector, who resides without Canada and who, to secure the election of any candidate, canvasses for votes or in any *way endeavours to induce voters to vote for any candidate at an election, or to reflain from voting, is guilty of an indictable offence against this Act punishable as in this Act provided.
That means that any citizen of England -I used the. words " citizen of England " this afternoon to call attention to the absurdity of the matter; I might have included any citizen of Ireland, or any citizen of Scotland, or anybody residing in the Isle of Man, or any other place that I might mention-would not have the right to come over here and try to influence-I want the minister's attention because this is a serious point-or induce any voter to vote for any candidate. By section 38 of the act any one of these gentlemen may be a candidate himself. The result is that of any man in -England, or Ireland, or Scotland, or the Isle of Man, or Newfoundland, wants to be a candidate for this House, he may be one.
#Mr. POWER: He would go to jail.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: No, he could be a candidate. But if he undertook to come over and hold meetings and say to the electors: " You should vote for me " for the reasons I have given, he would find himself landed in jail. Now that is very absurd and I would like to ask the minister if he can offer any other interpretation of the clause to the House.


Hugh Guthrie: It would be a very easy matter .to change section 38 by saying that all candidates for seats in this House shall 50
be residents of Canada. I think they should be. I quite approve of the section as it is drawn, but it is not of very great consequence. I would not like to see it changed unless there is some good reason for it. My hon. friend and myself were in the House when the section was put in and we supported the Government that had put it there. I thought it was a good section.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That was section 69.


Hugh Guthrie: No, both sections,-certainly section 11.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I do not wish to interrupt the minister but if he will allow me, I have under my hand section 69 of the Act which my hon. friend refers to and which corresponds to section 38. Section 38 of this Bill reads:
Except as in this Act otherwise provided any British subject, male or female; who is of the full age of twenty-one years, may be a candidate at a Dominion election.
The clause to which the minister refers in section 69 of the Dominion Elections Act which reads:
Except as in this Act otherwise provided any British subject may be a candidate in an election for a seat in the House of Commons. No qualification in real estate shall be required of any candidate.
That is really more favourable to the British subject.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not see how. I may be obtuse but I cannot see the difference.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Well, I did make the remark to the Minister of the Interior that I might be dull but I could not help seeing it.


Hugh Guthrie: I see the anomaly that might arise if we permit section 38 to remain as it is in the Bill. What I suggested was that we could very easily cure the difficulty by inserting a few words in section 38 to provide<that a person who offers himself as a candidate for election to this Parliament should be a resident of Canada.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: If the minister is going to undertake to debar any British subject from being a candidate for this House then I cannot offer any further objection.


Hugh Guthrie: Unless he is a resident of Canada.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I cannot offer any further objection.


Hugh Guthrie: I personally would be prepared to go that far.


Fred Langdon Davis: If the clause were amended so as to read that any. person who canvasses for votes or who, by personal solicitation, endeavours to induce voters to vote for any candidate other than himself -at an election, that will fix the whole matter.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been suggested to me that we could meet the point raised by my hon. friends opposite very simply by amending the first line of section 11 to make it read thus:
Aliy person, not being an elector or a candidate-
And so on. Then my hon. friend would be able to carry out his wish that at some time or other in the future, residents of the British Isles might sit in this House. I do not agree with the proposal, but if the Committee is willing I am perfectly content that after the words "not being an elector" we shall add "or a candidate."


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the amendment carry?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I do not take the responsibility for it; it is the Act of the Government.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Notwithstanding the very lucid explanation of the Acting Solicitor General I am still opposed to this clause. I expect we will very shortly have in this country a strong Labour party. The Labour party are about to organize and will perhaps need in their organization the help and assistance of some members of their body in the United States.	^


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I see no reason why they should not be allowed to come in-


An hon. MEMBER:: Keep them out.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: -to help in an election by speeches. More than that we shall also have, I think-


An hon. MEMBER:: We have got enough Socialists here now.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: . -a . strong Prohibition party. I see no reason, for instance, why "Pussyfoot" Johnson, who is now in England, should not come here, and yet if "Pussyfoot" Johnson were to come here he might be put in jail, and then the President of the Privy Council -would be in trouble.


An hon. MEMBER:: Even Billy Sunday might come here.
	*


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In any of these cases it might be pleaded that intervention on the part of strangers would be perfectly legitimate. Lord Jellicoe could even come here and explain his naval proposals] I would not like to see Lord Jellicoe put in jail.


Hugh Guthrie: I would not like to see him here engaged .in an election either.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It would not be a good thing for tire Tory party. However, if the clause must remain let the hon. gentleman make it a proper one. The clause provides:
Any person, not being an elector, who resides-
And so on. Well, residence is a very difficult term to define. A man who remains here over night might be deemed to "reside" in Canada. If the Acting Solicitor General adopted the phrase "who is domiciled in the country," then I think perhaps the clause might suit his purpose. In the province of Quebec we have discussed the question of "residence" and "domicile" in making up electoral lists time and again, and I would ask. the minister to substitute "domicile" for "residence."


Mr. MANION:: As a representative of
another province than that of my hon. friend opposite, I should like to say that personally I am convinced that the Canadian people can very well run their own elections without assistance from either English or Americans.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 12-conveyance of electors to polls, etc., for hire, forbidden.


Hugh Guthrie: These are the time-honoured clauses 270 and 271 which have been for a long time in our law.


William Stevens Fielding: Honoured more in the breach than in the observance.


Hugh Guthrie: They have been combined in these proposals and the language has been changed to some extent but the change does not affect the meaning. There are the same old sections, and as my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) said a moment ago perhaps more honoured in the breach than in the observance. It has not been my experience, but I have heard of it in other cases.


Mr. P. McGIBBON:: I think we ought to be candid -and fair and strike this out.


Ernest Lapointe: Let us be honest.


Peter Robert McGibbon: 
Henry Arthur Mackie: I endorse that view, only I support it (more strongly than the hon. gentleman has done. In the last election when I heard my opponent was hiring everything in the city I engaged more men to go and hire the remaining conveyances. 1 make this statement without any reservation. If any gentleman wants to prosecute me under the Act for .what I have done he can do so, but I will institute prosecution against every other member of the House if anything is started on me. As a matter of fact, however, that is the practice that is followed. I will give you a good reason for it. In the city of Edmonton there is a pretty large territory, as much as would accommodate the cities of Chicago and New York. They have two or three mills there and the men cannot go to the polls in the morning; the operator will not allow them out at noon except for an hour. If you are to get these men to the polls between five and seven o'clock you must do something else than merely send invitations to them. It is well known that we have been hiring conveyances for election purposes, and I endorse the statement of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) that it is time for us to stop being hypocrites.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Just before the motion for the adoption of this clause is put let me say that I agree entirely with the Bill as it stands only it does not go quite far enough. I think it would be well if the Acting Solicitor General would add to the prohibited conveyances:
Dirigibles, hydroplanes, submarines, submarine chasers, and all other chasers.
Same hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, all that
my hon. friend has suggested is covered by the clause as it now stands in these words "or other means of conveyance." I think, though, this clause might stand. As we have made fair progress on the Bill I now move that the Committee .rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Ernest Lapointe: Before you leave the
Chair-


Georges Henri Boivin: The motion is not debatable.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not want to debate the motion, but-


Georges Henri Boivin: If the minister wishes to withdraw his motion it will be in order for the hon. member to continue the debate.


Hugh Guthrie: I withdraw my motion.


ELECTION IN ST. JAMES, MONTREAL.
Ernest Lapointe: I wish to ask ii the Government has any information to give the House in regard to the election in 'St. James, Montreal? Is it to be postponed on account of the notices being sent out too late?


Rt. Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: I have no knowledge of any postponement of the election. I have seen it stated that there has been some irregularity in connection with the lists, but I have not definite infonnation as to what the particular irregularity is. If I may be permitted to give an impression that I do not want to be bound by, I would say that it does not seem clear to me that there is any authority in any one to decide that there is any irregularity and to postpone the election. If there be any gross irregularity, I can see that it would be for the courts to deal with it when properly seized of the particulars. However, I am speaking without accurate knowledge of what is the difficulty that is-said to exist.


Hugh Guthrie: I move that the Committee rise, report progiess and beg leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIANS.
[Stage Direction]
* Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior and Superintendent General of Indian Affairs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 13 to-provide for the settlement of differences between the Governments of the Dominion of Canada and the Province of British Columbia respecting Indian lands and certain other Indian affairs in the said province.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-Power given to Governor in Council to settle differences between [DOT] Canada and British Columbia respecting Indian matters.
John Howard Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, is this Act based on the report of the eommis-

sion with reference to lands in British Columbia which was tabled a few days ago?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the Act has anything to do at all with the Commisr sion "that reported a few days ago.". I do not know what commission the hon. member refers to.	.


John Howard Sinclair: With reference to Indian- lands in British Columbia'.


Arthur Meighen: That commission reported in the early months of 1916.
Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR. That is the commission I referred to. I think the report was tabled by the leader of the Government a few days ago.


Arthur Meighen: That may be, but I presume the report was put on the Table four years ago as well. It would be tabled a few days ago for the assistance of the House in the debate. That is the report referred to in the preamble to the Bill, and it was made in the early part of 1916.
Mr. ,T. IT. SINCLAIR: What was the total cost of that commission?


Arthur Meighen: The information has been given before, of course, but I can give it again. The total cost, inclusive of salaries and living allowances, clerical services, travel of clerical staff, transportation, surveys-a great many surveys had to be made in connection with the - work-office expenses, including rent, printing, binding and lithographing-$317,797.68.


John Howard Sinclair: That is a very large amount. Could the minister tell us why the money was spent by that commission?


Arthur Meighen: The principal reason is that the commission lasted so long. I would not like to state whether it took longer than was necessary to do its work,, but there are some who think it did.


John Howard Sinclair: Would the minister state how much was paid to the commissioners?


Arthur Meighen: The amount paid in salaries was $159,255.76, extending over four years, and the amount paid in living expenses was $62,490.92.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has not specified the commissioners who received this money.


Arthur Meighen: The commissioners were as follows: Hon. E. L. Wetmore, chairman, from April 12 to November 30, 1913; N. W. White, commissioner; G. H. Bergeron as

secretary; J. A. J. McKenna as commissioner; S. Carmichael as commissioner; D. H. Macdowall as commissioner; J. P. Shaw as commissioner; C. H. Gibbons as assistant secretary and secretary; A. H. Green, D.LjS., as technical officer; and McGregor Young as counsel.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that the Bill is made to empower the Governor in Council to carry out agreements which may be the result of the report of the commission to settle Indian affairs in British Columbia?


Arthur Meighen: Not quite. The commission was appointed in pursuance of an * agreement between the representatives of the Government of 'British Columbia and the representatives of the Government of Canada. The differences between the two Governments had lasted for a number of years; indeed, I think ever since British Columbia was a province. The two Governments by agreement undertook to appoint a commission composed of two representatives for British Columbia and two for the Dominion, the four so appointed to appoint a fifth, and the cost to be shared squally. The expense figures I have given are shared equally by the two. Governments. Perhaps I should very briefly state what the points of difference were. The British Columbia Government had contended that it, as distinct from the Governments of the other provinces, was entitled to a reversionary interest in all the Indian reserves in British Columbia; that is to say, if for any reason, whether by extinction of the tribe or by a decision to sell the reserves, or for any other cause, the land or any part thereof ceased to be used by the Indians, the Government of Canada was not entitled to sell that land' on any portion of it being surrendered and place the money in a trust fund for the benefit of the Indians, as is done in the ease of every other province, but that, that land upon so ceasing to be used by the Indians reverted to the province of British. Columbia. The administration of Indian affairs, if such a claim were to be conceded, would become not only very difficult but a tremendous burden upon the Dominion. That claim has not been conceded by the Government of Canada. The Government of British Columbia, by the terms of the Act of Union of 1874, bound itself to provide lands or reserves in that province adequate to the needs of the Indians, and the Government of Canada, on the other hand, bound itself to maintain a standard of Indian administration, equal in generosity, equal in

liberality towa'rds the Indians, to that maintained by British Columbia prior to Confederation. Clause 19 of the agreement, if I remember correctly-I do not know that I can express it fully; I have not the clause before me now-used words upon which British Columbia based its claim to this reversionary interest.
As time proceeded it became evident that certain reserves were larger than was necessary for the purposes of the Indians. That is true in every province. Scarcely a week passes without a surrender being made in some province of a portion of a reserve, the lands so surrendered being sold by the department and the proceeds going, according to the terms of surrender, to the trust fund,-some of them usually going to the Indians themselves direct. So this occurred in British Columbia. Reserves were found to be larger than necessary, and in some cases they were found to be too small. This, then, immediately brought to an acute point the question what was to be done with the reserves so in excess. We could not sell them, because if we did the money would not be ours, and we had no money with which to get new reserves.
I think I have indicated to the committee some of the difficulties that arose. It was determined by the two Governments that there should be a final end to this controversy. It was made more acute by the developments in relation to the Kitsil-ano reserve, which had become a very valuable property, to the business centre of the city of Vancouver; indeed, it was required by the Vancouver Harbour Commission in connection with harbour developments. That, then, became a fitting cause for the sale_ of that reserve and for the acquirement of some other land less valuable but more adapted to Indian habitation and to Indian pursuits. The property was valued at anything from half a million to a million and three-quarters. The Harbour Board had to have the property, but both Governments were claiming the proceeds, we, of course, claiming them only as trustees. There was not time,:-and furthermore there were other objections to doing so,-to have this question of reversionary title decided by' the courts. Consequently, an agreement was entered into and provision made therein whereby interim reports should be made, interim recommendations by the commission looking to the disposal of reserves or parts of reserves that might be immediately required for other purposes. Now, it was a term of that agreement, and embodied in the Orders in Council passed by the respective Governments subsequently adopting the agreement, that the agreement should be sympathetically received and acted upon by the two governments subject to such conditions or modifications as would be deemed reasonable. The effect was that virtually there was no agreement at all further than an agreement to have the matter investigated, and while that in itself might be worth while, it did not lead to^any finality. The Commission set to work and performed- on the whole, I think, very well-undoubtedly a very laborious task. Interim reports were made. One report was made with respect to this Kitsilano reserve, and that report was acted upon. As a result the Harbour Commissioners took possession of the Kitsilano reserve, and have possession of it to-day, but we are still in controversy as to what is to be' done with the money. Accordingly, the Harbour Board has not paid any money and there is no decision as to what they are going to pay or what is going to be done with the money when it is paid. A report was received in the early months of 1916 recommending certain cut-offs and certain new reserves, gnd the Government of Canada not long afterwards intimated its readiness to accept the report and to abide and be bound thereby. The report provided on the general and main issue that where land was found to be in excess of requirements, that excess might be sold and the proceeds equally divided between the two Governments, the Government of Canada to utilize the portion so received by it on behalf of the Indians for whom, of course, it was trustee. Now, the * Government of British Columbia did not deal with the report at all. They indulged in certain communications from time to time, it is true, but they have not yet intimated their willingness to accept. Indeed, we have at the present time no official communication-one was made and withdrawn-as to what the Government of British Columbia is prepared to do with regard to that report. But at the last session of the legislature of that province the Government took power to negotiate with the Dominion Government looking to the adoption of the report embodying modifications which were to result from the negotiations. There is no question in my mind that legislation is necessary to enable that to be done. That being the attitude and the action taken by the Government of British Columbia it seems desirable that we should be in the same position, because there will be no object in our negotiating with them

*without authority. They stand thSre with the authority given them by their legislature; it seems to me right and necessary that we have similar authority from ours. We have a list of the cut-offs recommended and also of the additions recommended; and the report is on the Table. This legislation is authority to negotiate and to make binding any agreement arrived at covering various details of these cut-offs and the disposition of the proceeds.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the dispute not be settled by the courts? .


Arthur Meighen: It is possible that the question of reversionary interest might be settled on a stated case. My information Is that an attempt was made some time ago by the legal departments of the two governments to come to terms on a stated case, but they could not agree on a stated case. A suggestion hhs been made again by the Attorney General of British Columbia looking to a stated case on two or three phases. They claim absolute ownership of the Kit-silano reserve. They claim reversionary interest and interest at law in all the other reserves. But in his communiction the Attorney General stated that the British Columbia Government were anxious to* settle the matter amicably if they could. I have replied to that' communication with a proposal which I hope will result in an amicable settlement of this question.
But even if such a settlement should be arrived at, that would not take care of the subjects sought to be taken care of by this Bill.
The question is,. what shall be cut off from the reserves. There are one thousand reserves in British Columbia alone, and they are all dealt with in the report. Even though the question of the reversionary interest were settled, we would still have to negotiate with the province as to just what cut-offs should be made from various reserves, what additions should, be made to otheis and what reserves should be added in the province. Consequently the legislation is necessary in any event even though we may have come to a stated case on the question of reversionary interest.


Jacques Bureau: The clause itself seems
to presume that, because power is asked for the Governor in Council to fulfil every act, deed, matter or thing necessary for the carrying out of the said agreement between the Governments of the Dominion of Canada and the province of British Columbia according to its true intent. There

is something that seems- to be. rather of a judicial character, namely as to the intent of the agreement. If you cannot agree together and get a stated case, how are you going to come out of the matter? If you give power to the Governor in Council, and the Government of British Columbia does not agree, what is the effect?


Arthur Meighen: If we do not agree, we do not get anywhere; but if we do agree as to the intent, then doubtless this clause makes the agreement binding.


Jacques Bureau: It gives the Government power to make it binding?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
Mr. DEVLIN- I do not wish to interfere in the affairs of British Columbia, but it seems to me-and I have had some experience in connection with the Indian Act-that this legislation in clause 3 of the present Bill is asked for independently of what may appear in the Indian Act. We are the custodians of the rights of the Indian, and the Government cannot take away from the Indians any of their reserves without first obtaining a surrender from the Indians concerned. The Government having obtained that surrender-I speak now from memory-the money goes to the credit of the Indians. If this Bill is passed, then it varies altogether the provisions of the Indian Act. I have in memory now a case in the constituency which I represent. There are two settlements, one of which is a very important settlement, at the other end of the county, called the village of Maniwaki. The land connecting the adjoining settlement, the River Desert, with the village of Maniwaki belongs to the Indian Reserve, and the river Desert runs right through that, and alongside of that is the main road w.hich is practically the only communication -between the two places. For years I applied to the Minister of Public Works of the former Government, not the present Government, and later to the Minister of Indian Affairs, to have that roadway protected by some kind of construction. The Public Works Department could not act-because this land was Indian land. This Government, I feel sure, would not be prepared to act possibly for the same reason, although I want to call the attention of the Minister of Indian Affairs to the fact that it is work that is abso-
10 p.m. lutely necessary for the preser-. vation of the Indian Reserve. It is also work that is absolutely necessary
i

to preserve a means of communication between the one place and the other. Upon this land that I speak of now in the immediate vicinity of the water, very few Indians reside; I think that right around there might be one family of Indians. ,And yet that land cannot be taken away from the Tribe. The Tribe still exists and the Tribe will not surrender. If this legislation is passed, of course, similar legislation could be applied as to Indian reserves in the province from wliicfi I come and with which I am more familiar.
I fail to see in what way, whilst the Indian Act remains, even in spite of clause 3 or any clause of the Bill, you are going to take away from the Indians vested rights. You may alter the sections of the Indian Act, but these are vested rights


Mr.   M EIG HEY@: I know the reserve to -which the hon. member refers in the province of Quebec at Maniwaki, having been there, and 1 know the position of the road and river, It is quit? true that the Indian Department would be powerless to take from that reserve any portion of it without the formality of a previous surrender, and it. is quite true that in this case also of the British Columbia reserves, affected by the report of the commissioners, though we might agree on a settlement of this whole trouble, dating back almost to Confederation, we would be absolutely powerless to carry it out if even one band, for any reason, however capricious, were to say: We will not surrender these two acres -or whatever the area may be. It is only in most exceptional cases and for most extraordinary reasons that the Government, as the guardian of the Indians, should assert the right to take any land without the consent of the band. But for the life of me I do not know how we are ever going to settle this matter unless we do assert that right. We have no reason to apprehend especially that there will be the exercise of caprice or obstinacy on the part of these bands. It will be our endeavour in any event to secure surrenders, even though this clause passes. But surely it is only right that we should have the power to carry out this settlement, because the legislation is asked for only for the purpose of carrying it out, and otherwise w^ cannot administer Indian affairs in British Columbia. It is for the purpose of settlement that this commission was appointed, and in order .to make the settlement effective we must have the power in this clause. The reasons are extraordinary; the circumstances are most unusual and compelling, and on that account II decided to ask Parliament for this power in this special case.


Mr. DEVDIN:: I said at the opening of my remarks that I did not wish to enter into the details of British Columbia affairs. Does the minister think that if this legislation passes, he will be able to give a good and valid title?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. This legislation, being subsequent to the Indian Act, is valid legislation. I do not think there is any doubt of that. This legislation has been submitted to the Justice Department and they understand the purport of this clause.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are the Indians themselves satisfied with the settlement that is proposed here?.


Arthur Meighen: That is a pretty large order. I do not know that they are. I believe the Indians of British Columbia, at least some people who represent them, claim that they want to go to the foot of the Throne on the whole question of Indian title in British Columbia, but that is another question. They claim that the old Indian title has never been extinguished in British Columbia, but I do not think there will be any object served in getting into a discussion of that subject; it has to-do with the state of mind of the Indians, and I do not think I would be justified in saying that all the Indians of British Columbia are satisfied, because I do not think they are and I do not think they ever will be.


Jacques Bureau: I have here something new that has just been brought to my notice. It is a letter from the special agent of the Allied Tribes of Indians of British Columbia. From this letter they appear to be dissatisfied and they would like to hftve a hearing.	'


Arthur Meighen: Does that not refer to a hearing with respect to Bill No. 14 rather than this Bill?


Jacques Bureau: To this Bill. They say
that they had a promise in 1910 that their case would be submitted to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, arid that the matter would be adjudicated. I do not think that the [DOT]minister should entertain any objection to going into this question. Whatever there is in these people's contention, we might just as well know it and see where we stand. As the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) has said, we are brushing aside the Indian Act in this case, and

giving the Governor in Council the right to take any part in an Indian reservation without surrender. If we brush aside the Indian Act, the money which is derived from tho sale of the reservations will he disposed of without reference to the provisions of the Indian Act, and it follows that the whole procedure after taking over the land will not be under the operation of that Act. If this matter could be postponed I Could look into it further and be able to submit information to the minister that might possibly throw light on the subject.


Arthur Meighen: There will be no need
of that, for" the reason that if the Indian contention is right, or if they should be encouraged to go to the. Privy Council or anywhere else on the question of the extinction of. the original Indian title, they will be in just as good a position after this, measure goes through as they are now. Their claim, if it is good, challenges the whole foundation of the original Indian Act, but their request to be heard should have no bearing, on this Bill. This Bill would be invalid in relation to British Columbia lands in the same way that the whole Indian Act would be invalid, if their claim were good. That is to say, they might just as well be heard against the Indian Act as against this. I do not think their request has anything to do with the question of the wisdom of passing this legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
minister would get on as quickly with the Act by postponing further discussion for the time being as if he proceeded and we had to delay the third reading for a time. There are some representatives of the Indians in the city at the present time who wish to be heard in reference to the matter, and who are anxious to present their case to some members of the House, and I think it is due to them that we should give them a chance of being heard through their representatives.


Arthur Meighen: If there are any Indians who want to he heard in relation to this Bill I have not heard of it. There are Indians who have come dbwn and have seen myself and other ministers, and no doubt hon. members also. They want to be heard in relation to an amendment to the Indian Act and it is mainly for tjiat reason that that Act is being referred to a committee. But I cannot see why they should want to be heard in relation to this Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have a petition from Indians, asking to be heard in reference to this very Act.


Arthur Meighen: It is a wonder they did not petition me.	*


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know why they did not, unless it was, as the minister has intimated to-night, that he was not inclined to listen to the Indian point of view.	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: I never heard of the
matter before.


Mr. PECK:: While I have no desire to see this Bill hurried through,. I desire to say a word or two in regard to the advisability of- proceeding. There -are more Indians in the constituency of Skeena than perhaps in -any other riding in Canada, -and I am the very last man who would wish to do an injustice to them. I have the very greatest respect for the Indian tribes in my riding, especially the more advanced tribe of Tsim-pshian; but I have known of this controversy for a long time, and I do not see that we shall get anywhere unless we empower the minister to deal with the Government of British Columbia. There are in British Columbia -a lot of reserves that have been held up for years, -such for instance as the Giltsalt Reserve. I may say that' there is a good deal of .mining up in the mountains and in the valley, and the whole development of the district is held up because the reserve cannot be de-alt-with. If this Bill passes it will be possible, I understand, for that reserve to revert immediately to the province of British Columbia, and development of the country will be proceeded with. I should like to know who are the Indian agitators that come from British Columbia. Some representatives of the Indians may be all right, but I may mention a man named O'Meara-


William Stevens Fielding: An Italian, apparently.
Mr, PECK: He is an -agitator, wherever he comes from. He annually makes a business of going to the Indians and collecting a few hundred dollars to keep him going. He is -a sea lawyer -and keeps up an agitation from year to year, -and these people come down and try to confuse-I was going to say confound-the minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not the gentleman I refer to.
"Mr. PECK: This man is typical of them.


Jacques Bureau: I h-ave the names of the men here. They are Peter Calder, of Nishga Tribe; George Matheson, of, Tsimpshian Tribe; Peter R. Kelley, of Haida Tribe; Basil David, of -Shuswap Tribe; all repre-

senting the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I know them; they are all O'Meara's children.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
wondered a moment ago why the representatives of the Indians did not petition him. If the minister is agreeable to postponing this matter I shall be glad to ask them to see him to-morrow if possible, or at any other time he may suggest.


Arthur Meighen: For the -sake of getting the Bill through I would deny myself the - extreme pleasure of seeing Mr. O'Meara.
Mr. MACKENZIE King: I am not speaking of Mr. O'Meara.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid there is too much truth in the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peck). Mr. O'Meara has undoubtedly made himself the parent of considerable trouble among the Indians of British Columbia, and I do not feel very sympathetic at all towards his whole mission and his conduct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not referring at all to Mr. O'Meara, but to a man named J. A. Teit.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. O'Meara is not an Indian, but one of a number of people who make themselves leaders of Indian trouble. He is not alone in that regard. The Indian is just as much the victim of the agitator as many other people in this country, and when Mr. O'Meara is presenting Indian ' affairs and obtaining signatures to petitions he does not pretend to do so on his own behalf. He always puts forward the Indians.
I	do not think there is any reason for delaying this Bill at all. So far as I am concerned it would only mean coming back again. These mem have been heard times without number, iback over the years, by the last Government and the Government before the last. I would not wonder but that the leadef of the Opposition himself has received delegations on this very point. It has been in controversy-if you call this a controversy-for years and years; I cannot say how long, but I know the dispute dates back into a good part of the period of the Laurier Administration, if indeed it does not antedate that. I do not think that any good purpose would be served by crowning the matter with another delegation and sitting and listening to the story over again.


Ernest Lapointe: I think it is only fair to the gentlemen who are represented as
being agitators, to put on Hansard some of the arguments they present against the present Bill. They say:
1.	The Indian tribes of British Columbia have always claimed tribal ownership of their respective territories under ^aboriginal title and the Proclamation 'issued by King George Third in the year 1763.
2.	In the year 1875 by report of the then Minister of Justice of Canada adopted by the then Governor General of Canada in Council it was declared that the land claims of the Indian tribes of British Columbia are well founded and that those tribes are entitled to an interest in all the lands of that province.
3.	The then Government of the province of
British Columbia and succeeding governments of that province refused to recognize the land rights so declared, and proceeded to deal with the land's of British Columbia as the absolute property of the province notwithstanding the fact that in the year 1875 the then Land Act of the province had been disallowed upon the ground that its provisions ignored the land rights of the Indian tribes.	*
4.	The present position of the Indian land controversy which thus arose and has ever since continued is shown by the following extract from 'the statement of the Allied Tribes prepared at the request of the present Premier of British Columbia and presented to him on 13th December last:-
"By means of the direct and independent petition of the Nishga tribes we now have our case before His Majesty's Privy Council. We claim that we have a right to a hearing, a right which has now been made clear beyond any possibility of doubt. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when Prime Minister, on behalf of Canada, met the Indian tribes of northern British Columbia, and promised without any condition whatever that the land controversy would be brought before the Judicial Committee. Moreover, the Duke.of Connaught, acting as His Majesty's representative in Canada, gave positive written assurances that if the Nishga tribe should not be willing to agree to the findings of the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Privy Council will consider the Nishga petition. In view of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's promise and the Duke of Connaught's assurances, both of which confirm what we regard as our ctear constitutional right, we confidently expect an early bearing of our case."
5.	By communication which on 27th May, 1918, the London agents of the Nishga tribe addressed to the then Lord President of His Majesty's Privy Council, it was submitted on behalf of all tribes allied1 in support of the Nishga petition, among other things as follows :

"They are unwilling to be bound by the agreement regarding reserves mentioned in the petition which was made in the year 1912 between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia, as therein stated, 'as a final adjustment of all matters relating to Indian affairs in the province of British Columbia,' and under which the findings of the Royal Commission have been made. On the contrary, the allied tribes contend that both that agreement and the Order in Caunicil *adopting it which was passed on 27th November, 1912, are beyond the power of the Government of Canada."
3. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable body do not read a second

time said Bill No. 13, until all matters above set out and related matters shall have been fully considered by your honourable body.
And your petitioners will ever pray.
Peter Calder, of Nishga tribe.
George Matheson, of Tsimpshian tribe.
Peter.R. Kelley, of Haida tribe.
Basil David, of Shuswap tribe.
All representing the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia.
Dated at Ottawa, the 23rd day of March in the year 19 2'0.
I have nothing to add.


Arthur Meighen: It will be very clear to the hon. member now that what I said was 'correct. What these people claim-or rather what this man claims and what he got others to help him to claim-is that in 1874 the original Indian title was not extinguished, and he wants others to assist him to the foot of the Throne to argue out that question. Do hon. gentlemen really want to bring that question into the discussion of this Bill? Why? If that were the case we ought to cease the Indian administration altogether because we will have no Indian reserves at all.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend deny that these men are true representatives of the Indian tribes?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. O'Meara?


Ernest Lapointe: No, these four gentlemen.


Arthur Meighen: No, of course they are not.	I understand there is no
Indian agent or missionary or any one who has anything to do with it who does not denounce the whole movement and denounce the men, or the man, at the head of it. I do not think the committee wall be well advised to make the representations they have presented a cause for interference with the regular course of parliamentary procedure. It seems to me that it would be giving it an importance away beyond what it deserves. If there is anything in it it is just in the same position after the Bill passes as before. There is nothing disturbed by this Bill.


Jacques Bureau: These Indians, I understand, are only, a minority, a lot of troublemakers according to the statement I hear from hon. gentlemen on the other side who seem to know about this matter. It is said that they only represent a small portion of the \uhole and that the majority of the Indians are' willing to submit to the report of the royal commission. Is my comprehension of the facts right? Is it true that these -men are a minority, that they are just a

few troublemakers who come before this House to oppose this legislation?


Arthur Meighen: That part, I am satisfied, is right, I cannot make any statement as to the opinion of the majority of the Indians of British Columbia on the report of the commission. I cannot say that it can be said that the majority of them have any definite opinion on the matter. I do not know. If I had the deputy minister in front of me I might speak perhaps with more authority on a question of that sort, but I do stand by what I have said as to the authoritative or lack of authoritative character of the representations made through the instrumentality of Mr. O'Meara.


Jacques Bureau: I would point out to the minister that the Indian Act provides all the machinery required for the surrender of this land and if these men are only a few troublemakers there should not be any difficulty because unanimity is not required. A tribe may reach a decision upon it and the majority decides whether the' surrender shall take place or not.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Jacques Bureau: The fact that you want to discard the Indian Act so as to reduce the area of these reservations is an indication to me that certain Indians are not getting a fair deal. They may be getting a fair deal but they are not getting the deal that they desire to have. If the Government were certain from the reports of their agents, or the investigations that have been made, that these men did not represent the feelings of the Indians, then, under the Indian Act, you have the power, where necessary, to get these tribes together and get them to surrender those parts of the reservations that you desire to acquire. The Government of British Columbia want a part of them and the Dominion Government are willing to make an agreement with the interested parties. Are we going to discard the contracts which we have made with these wards and under which we are bound to take care of their property and to look after them? I think that some consideration should be given to this matter before we proceed further. I see that one of the gentlemen who has signed this petition is the Rev. Mr. Kelley. Does the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peck) know him? He is the Rev. P. R.
. Kelley, of Nanaimo.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I know most of the reverend gentlemen in my riding but I cannot say that I know Mr. Kelley. I never heard of him.


Ernest Lapointe: I have the pleasure of knowing Mr. Kelley very well; I have heard from him in connection with another Bill which is before the House, iBill No. 14.
I am sure he is a gentleman well qualified to speak on these questions. He seems to know all that concerns the Indians of British Columbia.


Jacques Bureau: What" I was saying when I was interrupted was this: No harm will be done by delay and we will have the opportunity of reading the papers and memoranda which have been prepared and thus of knowing exactly what we are doing when we vote upon this Bill, which brushes aside the Indian Act for the purpose of carrying out certain agreements. No time will be lost and we shall have the satisfaction on this side of knowing what the claims of these people are. We do not want to stop the passage of this legislation if it is necessary, and if the claims made are unfounded surely no exhaustive discussion will take place.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I do not want it to be thought for a moment that I wish to impose any hardship on the Indians of British Columbia; in fact, no member of the House will go as far as I am prepared to go in order to help them out. As far as the franchise is concerned, I wish to see the more advanced tribes get it, but I do not see that we are going to get anywhere unless you empower the Minister of the Interior to deal with this question. Unless you do that it will be possible for any tribe or any crest to hold up the Bill. Take the Eagle Crest consisting of only half a dozen. They can hold the settlement up unless the minister is empowered to deal with the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: We are not trying" to kill this Bill. We merely want-on behalf of these people, who are in the minority, who are feeble and who ask for protection -a little time to study their grievances and to consider the question. I do not think this request should be refused.
Mr. MEIGIIEN; If hon. gentlemen opposite press for time to study the Bill further I am not going to ask the committee to report the Bill. I want, however, to bring this fact to their attention, especially to that of the hon. member for Three Rivers. Ninety-nine per cent of the Indians of British Columbia might look with favour upon the settlement and 'be satisfied with it, but unless this Bill goes through it might well be that the other one per cent could defeat its whole purpose. There might be some little tribe, in which there might not be twenty men who have a vote, but if those twenty men refused to surrender an acre and a half of their reserve


Jacques Bureau: I do not object to the Bill, I only want time to consider it.


Arthur Meighen: I am answering the
hon. gentleman's point. If those twenty men, with respect to an acre and a half of their reserves, say it shall not be surrendered no matter what happens, then the agreement we may come to goes by the board. It is not very hard for any one- at all events with some tribes-to get his way, if he goes about it in a skilful manner, with at least twenty persons. Consequently it seems to me necessary that if it is decided by us as trustees for the Indians, and we are acting for the Indians, that this' is a proper settlement of a long-standing controversy, surely it is right that we should put it -out of the power of any one who tries to influence the Indians, as well .as of a very small minority of Indians themselves, to totally defeat the whole settlement. I only want to point out that, if there was a petition presented to myself asking to be heard against this Bill on any ground that affected the legislation that would be one matter. But when people come and say " You have no title to Indian lands in British Columbia, they are still owned by the Indians and the descendants of the Indians of 1870," it does not seem to me that it is to be taken seriously as in any way affecting this legislation. That is the point I desire to make. On the ground that my hon. friends opposite wish to study the legislation in all its bearings I certainly will not press this (measure now. I therefore move the com-imittee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again. * .
Progress reported.


INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. Meighen moved that Bill No. 14 to amend the Indian Act be read a second time and referred to the special committee, appointed on March 25th inst. for the consideration thereof.
Jacques Bureau: Who form the committee?	,


Arthur Meighen: The committee was appointed yesterday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: I do not know whether this is the most appropriate moment but if it is I would like to move that we return to the Order of Motions in order that a change may be made in the personnel of the committee just referred to.


Georges Henri Boivin: The motion
can only pass with the unanimous consent of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: The committee named to consider this Bill consisted of Messrs. Boys, Charlton, Davidson, Ethier, Lapointe, Lanctot, Reid, Mackenzie, Stacey and Wilson (Saskatoon). I desire to move that the name of Mr. Charlton be omitted from the committee and that there be substituted therefor the name of Mr. Harold (Brant). I do this at the suggestion of Mr. Charlton.


Mr. HAY:: Will the Bill come before
the House again after it has been considered by the special committee?


Georges Henri Boivin: All Bills referred to the committees are submitted to Committee of the Whole House before they are read a third time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell (Minister of. Health) Bill No. 28 respecting Maple Products was read a second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-Manufacture and sale of adulterated maple sugar or syrup

Adulterated maple sugar or syrup defined-Use of word "maple" restricted to pure maple sugar or syrup.
Mr. ROWELL:: I should like to make an amendment to subsection 3. As hon. members will see, the language of this subsection-which is the language of the law as it now stands in the Adulteration Act- is so broad that it covers the use of the word "maple" in any connection practically, and some difficulties have arisen in the administration of the Act where the claim has been made that the word should not be used in relation to products having no relation to maple syrup whatever, such as the Maple Leaf Milling Company's brand of flour. It is difficult, however, to frame a definition that will just meet the case, and the Department of Justice has

suggested that the clause should be amended in this form:
by inserting at the beginning of the said subsection the following words: "Except with the consent of the Minister of Health."
I would therefore move that the clause be so amended.


William Stevens Fielding: Ip the case of the .Maple Leaf Milling Company they would simply have to get consent?
i Mr. ROWELL: Yes; and in any similar case. One came to my attention during the past two or three months, where a firm had been selling a maple brand of biscuits, and had been doing so before this Act was passed. Their right to do it was challenged. Their product had no relation to maple syrup or maple sugar, but it was said they were violating the law.


Jacques Bureau: Is it the Maple Biscuit Company?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think the Maple brand of biscuits manufactured by the McCormick Company of London.
Mr. -BUREAU:	Don't they claim that
they sweeten their biscuits with maple sugar?
Mr. ROWELL. Then they should not have permission under that clause, because unless it were pure maple sugar they should not use the term "maple."


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The minister instanced flour; that is not a product of maple sugar.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No; but my hon. friend will see that this subsection does not require that it shall be a product of maple sugar or syrup. The subsection really creates a monopoly in the use of the word " magpie," and it may be a serious question whether such was contemplated by the Act.


Mr. CAHILL:: Will the minister explain subsection 2 of section 2? What is meant by being " up to standard " within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act of 1920?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That Act prescribes a certain standard of purity, and the product must comply with that standard to be entitled to be considered pure maple sugar within the terms of this clause. That standard is fixed in order to protect those who are making maple syrup and maple sugar. A certain amount of maple syrup or maple sugar was being adulterated with other sweetening mixtures. The syrup or sugar must comply with a certain standard, or it cannot be sold as maple syrup or maple sugar. -


Frank S. Cahill: That is provided for in
subsection 3 of that clause. But what is the standard of maple syrup? May it be thinner or thicker, or is there any standard required under the Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The definition will come up when the other Act is before the House.


John Ewen Sinclair: Is not subsection 1 of section 2, which says that " any article of food resembling maple syrup shall not be sold," rather a sweeping clause? If any food product resembles maple syrup, it seems to me it should be sold under its proper name.	-


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that the latter part of that clause qualifies the language of the first two lines:
or being- an imitation of maple sugar or maple syrup, or which is composed partly of maple sugar or maple syrup, and which is not pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup.
That is the present law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As that section now reads what my hon. friend has just said would apply. If the word "or" after " resembling " were changed to "and " it would meet the objection raised.


Jacques Bureau: Insert after " syrup
which is composed partly." That would be more grammatical.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I see no objection to the change being made, but this is the form in which the section was originally enacted and it has been in force for six years.


William Stevens Fielding: * If we may return to subsection 3, I do not know that I could suggest any better words than those proposed by the minister, and yet I think they are inadequate, as, if added, they will convey the impression that it is the purpose of the clause to allow the minister to consent to some of these adulterations. I know that that is not what is in his mind at all, but it leaves that impression, and he may find himself open to annoying applications of that nature. I am sorry that the Department of Justice has not been able to put some limitation on the consent to be given. I cannot, offhand, suggest the proper form which the amendment should take, but before the matter is finally disposed of I would like the minister to find some happier expression to make it clear that consent shall not be given in the case of any foodstuffs, but is to be given only in connection with the naming of an article which has no relation to the maple trade.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest that the minister make a change in the language of the first section which will remove any doubt as to the legality of selling an article of food that may resemble maple syrup. If he will change the word " or " at the beginning of line 3 to " and," the point will be met.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no objection to making such an amendment. But the word " or " occurs twice in that line, and the meaning is quite different if you change the first and do not change the second.


John Ewen Sinclair: Change the second and leave the first.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If you do that, the clause may be open to different construction.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Change the second
" or "; then you provide that a man may sell a thing which is not maple sugar, though it resembles or imitates it, but he may not sell it if it is partly composed of maple sugar.


John Ewen Sinclair: Why should a dealer not be permitted . to sell an imitation which is sold under its proper name, even if it contains no maple syrup? I do not see why he should be prevented from selling it simply because it resembles maple syrup. It may be syrup of some other kind, and a pure article of food.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then some provision should be made that the article should be described by its proper name.


John Ewen Sinclair: I agree.


William Stevens Fielding: That clause has been in the law for some time. I think it would be wise for the minister to consult his officials before making the change suggested. A slight change in the wording of an Act after it has been in operation for some years may materially affect it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know an article of food similar to maple sugar which is customarily on sale in confectionery stores. As this section now reads, it would be an offence to sell that article. I do not think that is the intention of the Act. The intention is to protect dealers against imitations of maple sugar. Under the Bill as it now stands it would be an offence to sell maple cream, for example, an article which is like maple sugar.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is an oiffence to sell maple cream if it is not pure maple sugar.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under this Act it would be an offence to sell any candy that is at all like maple sugar.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


HONEY ADULTERATION.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell (Minister of Health), Bill No. 29, respecting honey, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the chair.
On section 2-feeding bees with sugar:
Newton Wesley Rowell: This is simply the re-enactment of clauses relating to this matter which have been eliminated from the present Adulteration Act.


Ernest Lapointe: Is there any change?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No change. The clauses are taken out of the Adulteration Act because in re-drafting and consolidating the law we think it desirable that where a monopoly is created it should be dealt with under a separate Act and not in the general Act respecting adulteration of foods.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Section 2 provides as follows:
Feeding bees with sugar, except for the purpose of being consumed by them as food, or with glucose or any sweet substance-
And so on. But who is to go after the bees and see if they are fed with these different articles? Has the minister any official in his department who will follow the bees? 1 can assure him I had only one experience in going into an apiary; I found that there were more bees than I had reckoned upon, and I should not like to be an officer charged with the duty of going amongst them several times. The minister is putting on the statute book words, but he is not inserting any provision by which this law is to be carried out. Who is going to look after the bees?
Mr. ROWELL; If the Civil Service Commission advertise for some one to carry out this law, I shall not expect my hon. friend to be an applicant for the position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Clause 2
reads:
Feeding bees with sugar, except for the purpose of being consumed by them as food.
Can the minister suggest any other purpose that the bees would use the sugar for except for food?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not profess to be
well versed in the art of caring for bees,

but the point is this. A certain amount of sugar is all right as food for the bees, and there is no objection to that; but if they are fed sugar for the purpose of making honey, a lower grade of honey is produced, not at all equal to the honey produced by the bees under normal conditions getting the honey from natural sources. That is the* object of the provision.


Frank S. Cahill: I take it that the Minister of Health is interested, not so much in the health of the bee, as in the product of the bee.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should think the question of the health of the bee would come under the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 30, to amend the Ottawa Mint Act, was read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
. On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Monday, March 29, 1920.

[Stage Direction]
Lion. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council): I beg to lay on the Table the following draft conventions and recommendations adopted by the International Labour Congress at Washington and communicated to the Government by the Secretary General oi the League of Nations, pursuant to Article 405, Treaty of Versailles:
(1)	Draft convention limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week.
(2)	Draft convention concerning unemployment.
(3)	Recommendation concerning unemployment.
(4)	Recommendation concerning reciprocity of treatment of foreign workers.
(5)	Draft convention concerning the employment of women before and after childbirth.
(6)	Draft convention concerning the employment of women during the night.
(7)	Recommendation concerning the prevention of anthrax.
(8)	Recommendation concerning the protection of women and children against lead poisoning.

(9)	Recommendation concerning the establishment of Government .Health Services.
(10)	Draft convention fixing the minimum age for admission of children to industrial employment.
(11)	Draft convention concerning the night work of young persons employed in industry.
(12)	Recommendation concerning the application of the Berne Convention of 1906, on the prohibition of the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that in printed form?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is in printed form as it has been received from the secretary of the League of Nations. I think that a certain number of copies of the convention were printed after the Conference, but we have not copies available for distribution among the members of the House. I shall be glad to move that these recommendations be printed for distribution among members.


RETURN TABLED.
[Stage Direction]
Copy of the Order in Council dated December 1, 1919, respecting the ratification of the treaties and conventions laid before the House of Commons on Monday, March 1, 1920.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell, the name of Mr. Turgeon was substituted for that of Mr. Ross on the Committee on Pensions.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks).

[Stage Direction]
' Mr. DECHENE:
1.	Has the Government purchased, within the last three years, one or several islands in the River St. Lawrence?
2.	If so, what is the name of the island or islands so purchased, where situated and what is the purchase price of each?
3.	From whom was the island or islands purchased?
Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	In November, 1919, the Department of the Interior expropriated under the authority of the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act for Dominion Parks purposes an island in the St. Lawrence river.
2.	This island was a portion of the St. Regis Indian Reserve and was known as Sheep or Doran's Island. It is situated opposite the town of Morrisburg, Ontario. The price paid for same was $3,300.
3.	The island was expropriated from the Indians of the St. Regis Indian Reserve.


THE CANADA WHEAT BOARD.
Mr. McCOIG:: 1.	How many members are there on the Wheat Board?
2.	How many employees are there connected with the said Board?
3.	What is the monthly expenditure of the said Board, including salaries of the Members, employees and operating expenses?
4.	Are said expenses paid by the Government out of the general revenues or are they deducted from the price obtained by the Board for the wheat before it is divided among the farmers?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue the services of this Board to handle the crop of next season?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Twelve.
2.	I have not the exact record but probably 70 to 75.
3.	Of the monthly expenditure of the board, including salaries of the members, Employees and operating expenses, I have no record.
4.	None of the expenses are paid by the Government out of the general revenue. The Wheat Board is appointed a board to purchase and sell wheat. It performs the operation, makes the advance cash payments, pays all expense out of gross receipts, and at the end of the transaction, distributes to the original producers whatever sums may be coming to them pro rata.
5.	It is not the present intention of the Government to continue the services of this Board.


SMALL FLOUR MILLS.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Is- the report correct that most of the small flour mills in the country are closed down on account of the market being limited to the local market?
2.	Are the small mills suffering from the set price of flour, not being able to compete against the large mills?
3.	Is there a tax imposed upon flour shipped [DOT] to the Orient? If so, why?
4.	Is there any intention of removing this tax?
B. Is the Government aware that the Oriental market is about the only export market for flour available at the present?
6.	If so, why is that market not encouraged?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	It is not correct to say that a greater number of small flour mills in the country are closed down than in normal times on account of the market being limited. Whether it is due to that or not it is difficult to say.
2.	The Government has no information on which to base an answer generally applicable.

3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	The Government is not aware that the Oriental market is about the only export market for flour available at present. Its information would lead to a contrary opinion.
6.	Practically answered by 5, but in no way is the market in the East discouraged.


CANTEEN PROFITS-CANADA'S SHARE.
Mr. ANDREWS:: 
FARM LABOUR FOR SPRING WORK.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Is any effort being made to obtain farm labour to meet fhe needs for spring work?
2.	Is there a scarcity of such labour at the present time?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	The Dominion Provincial Employment Service is endeavouring to secure the necessary farm labour to meet the needs for. spring work, and already more than 500 placements are being made on farms weekly. The Employment Service reports 504 un. placed applicants in the agricultural group on Mrch 6, 1920, and 951 unfilled vacancies; 614 applicants for farm labour were referred to vacancies during the week ending March 6, and 530 placements were made, of which 405 were made in the three Praire Provinces.
A conference of representatives of the Dominion and Provincial Employment Services was held at Calgary, March 8, 9 and 10, and the question of securing an adequate supply of farm labour was discussed. There was general agreement that it would be impossible to indicate the farm labour requirements with any degree of accuracy for some weeks' time, as the farmers are waiting until the spring is more advanced before registering their orders. In as far as pos-

sible, however, the situation is being anticipated. Numbers of men are now being released by the lumbering companies in Northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan and by the mining companies in the Crows Nest Pass, and it was thought an effort should be made to divert them directly to employment on farms. Temporary employment offices have been accordingly opened in Manitoba and Saskatchewan for that purpose, and the opening of one or two temporary offices in the Crows Nest Pass is under consideration. As soon as the workers are released from the mines and camps, efforts will be made to register them at the temporary offices and to send each man on reduced transportation to a farm job.
2.	There is every possibility that the demand for farm labour will be satisfied.


CANADA WHEAT BOARD.
Mr CHISHOLM:: 1.	Who are the members of the Canadian Wheat Board?
2.	What salary is paid each member of said
board ?
3.	What other allowance is paid to each of
them?	_
4.	Is there a tax of $2 or any amount upon a barrel of flour exported from Canada?
5.	If so, by whom is this tax imposed and what is its object?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Jas. Stewart, chairman; H. W. Wood, F. W. Riddell, W. A. Black, Norman McL. Patterson, Wm. L. Best, C. B. Watts, Frank
O.	Fowler, William H. McWilliams, Jos. Quintal, Lieut.-Col. J. Z. Fraser, Wm. A. Matheson.
2.	Only the chairman and assistant chairman of the board are paid salaries. No salary has yet been recommended to or approved by the Government in regard to these officials.
3.	The members of the board outside of those I have mentioned are paid no salary. They get travelling and living expenses and they get a per diem allowance when they arq^absent from their homes on the business of the board, at Winnipeg.
4.	There is no export tax on flour, nor has there been any.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


PEACE WITH ENEMY COUNTRIES.
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	When will the Proclamation declaring under the War Measures Act. 1914. that the war between Great Britain and her Allies and the German and Austrian Empires and their Allies, is at an end. be published?
2.	Has the Government of Canada, or any member thereof given any consideration to the
question as to whether it is advisable to publish said Proclamation?
3.	If so, why has the said Proclamation not been published?
4.	Until the publication of this Proclamation are goods coming from or going to Germany, Austria or any other country which was their Ally, allowed to be received by or exported from Canada?
5.	Has the Government any information as to whether trade is being carried on between the inhabitants of Great Britain, France and the United States, or any of them, and the inhabitants of Germany, Austria and their Allies, or any of them?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	When peace shall have been legally restored with the last of the enemy powers.
2.	Yes.
3.	Because the time for it has not yet arrived.
4.	With Germany and Austria, yes.
5.	The Government is informed that trade is being carried on between the inhabitants of Great Biitain, France and United States and the countries with which peace has been concluded.


RIVIERE-DU-LOUP SHOPS.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Of the ninety employees transferred from RiviSre-du-Loup shops to St. Malo shops, how many were single and how many were married?
2.	How many women and children are dependent on said married men?
3.	What is the total population thus taken from Rivi&re-du-Loup?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	There have been 93 employees transferred, of which 33 are single and 60 married.
2.	227 women and children and 29 other dependents, total 256.
3.	349.


NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND EXPRESS COMPANIES.
Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	What are the conditions imposed on the Dominion Express Company for the service of National Railways agents and the use of offices in the stations of said railways?
2.	Is it the intention to give the same privi- / leges to the Canadian Express Company?
3.	The Canadian National Railways taking control of the Canadian Express Company, is it the intention to give to the latter the exclusive privilege of the service of agents and stations on said railways?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The Dominion Express Company pay the Canadian Government Railways 50 per cent of its gross earnings for the service of that railways' agents and the use of



offices and stations of said railways. Also the privilege of operating on their lines.
2.	The Canadian Express Company operates on the Canadian Government Railways on the same basis as the Dominion Express Company.
3.	This being a question of policy, it will be considered by the Board of Management.


CANADA HIGHWAYS ACT.
Mr. FRIPP:: 1.	Upon what date were the regulations called for by the Canada Highways Act (Chapter 54, 10 Geo. V) promulgated in the Canada Gazette?
2.	Were these regulations communicated directly to the Governments of the several provinces, or only through the medium of the official publication?
3.	Have all the provincial governments accepted the conditions of the Canada Highways Act and the regulations founded upon it?
4.	If not, which provincial governments so far have refrained from accepting the provisions of the Act?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	December 13, 1919.
2.	The regulations called for the Canada
Highways Act (Chapter 54,	10 Geo. V.)
were communicated directly to the governments of the several provinces.
3.	Five of the different Provincial Governments have filed with the department, their general programme map of a system of selected highways to be constructed or improved conforming to the terms of the Canada Highways Act and the regulations thereunder, and the remaining Provincial Governments are, they advise, working on their general plans in this connection. The department has not been advised that the conditions of the Act and the regulations thereunder are not satisfactory to any province.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


NAVY LEAGUE OF CANADA.
*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What is the Navy League of Canada?
2.	Is it a Government enterprise?
3.	What is the object of the League?
4.	For what purpose are funds collected In the name of the League?


George Green Foster: The answer to the second question is No. The first, third and fourth questions are not answerable by the Government. If the hon, member wishes that information he should apply to the officers of the League. The Government has no information with reference to their aims, objects or operations.


WHEAT SHIPMENTS BY FARMERS INTO UNITED STATES.
*Mr. MACNUTT:: 1.	Is the Government aware that It is reported' that some farmers who live too far from the United States boundary to haul wheat from their farms by wiaggon, shipped same by the carload to some point near the boundary, loaded it info waggons and crossed the line, thus getting the benefit of the United States market?
2.	If this report is correct, will such farmers be compelled to pay the Wheat Board the amount received for such wheat, less the initial price fixed by the Board, and receive participation certificates therefor?
3.	Will holders of participation certificates receive a proportionate share of any extra price obtained by such farmers?


George Green Foster: The Government' is aware that it has been reported that some farmers who live too far away from the United States' boundary haul wheat from their barns by waggon, ship the same by carload to some point near the boundary, load it into waggons and cross the line, thus getting the benefit of the United States market, but neither the Government nor the Wheat Board has any definite information other than rumour. Question No. 2 is practically answered by reply to No. 1 and the same with regard to-question No-. 3.


PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES.
*Mr. MACNUTT:: Will the holders of participation certificates receive any allowance to compensate them for the reduction in value of such certificates by reason of -reduced prices for seed wheat, allowed on compassionate grounds to farmers in dried out areas?


George Green Foster: No.
'Mr. MACNUTT::
1.	Will Canadian farmers near the International boundary who have marketed grain by waggon -loads into the United States be compelled to account to the Wheat Board for the amount received by them over an-d a%ove the initial price fixed by the Board?
2.	Will holders of participation certificates receive a proportionate share of any extra price received by Canadian farmers marketing by waggon loads into the United States?


George Green Foster: The answer to each question is in the negative.


INDIAN RESERVES IN CANADA.
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	How many Indian reserves are there in-
Canada?
2.	Where are they situated?

3.	How many lots are there In said reserves, and how many buildings thereon?
4.	How many Indians are there in Canada?
5.	How many in each province?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	1,625.
2.
Nova Scotia	 46
Prince Edward Island	 3
New Brunswick	 26
Quebec	 21
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Manitoba	/..	,
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Ontario	
Prince Edward Island . . .. , . ..
Quebec	
Saskatchewan	
Totals	
Grand total of buildings, 38,1011.
Ontario	 157"
Manitoba	 82
Saskatchewan	 116
Alberta	 84
British Columbia	 1,085
Yukon	 5
Total	 1,625
3. As .many of the reserves are not subdivided into lots, this information cannot
be given.			
Stone, Brick			
and Frame	Other	Outbuild-	PublicDwellings.	Dwellings.	ings, etc.	Property.228'	1,200	1,950-	724,073	2,951	4,6'38>	299125	1,847'	1,566-	119321	38	18-3	31342	61	155	311,895	2,160	5,826	30640	22	2-3	71,185,	259*	1,8-71	68'79 .	1,619	2,40*2	1088,2 9T	10,157	18,-614	1,0334.	105,998.Alberta	
8,837British Columbia	
25,694Manitoba	
11,583New Brunswick	
1,846Nova Scotia	
2,031Ontario	
26,411Prince Edward Island	
292Quebec.. .. t	
13,366Saskatchewan	
10,646Northwest Territories	
3,764Yukon	
1,528Total	
105,998


CANADIAN VICTORY BONDS.
*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is the Government aware that many Victory Bonds of 1919 have not been delivered! yet?
2.	Is -the Government aware that the bonds subscribed through English-iCanadian banks have been delivered for over six months, and those subscribed through French-Canadian banks are not yet delivered?
3.	If so, what is the reason of the delay?


Henry Lumley Drayton: 1,	2 and 3. As far as the Government is aware, all Victory Loan Bonds of 1919, upon which payments in full have been made, have been delivered to subscribers, both in French and English text.
Deliveries are made through the medium of the chartered banks. The various banks requisition the nearest Assistant Receiver General's office to cover the requirements of subscribers through their office. In the case of subscribers desiring fully registered 511
bonds the banks requisition the Department of Finance; all such requisitions have been filled to date. The above applies to the English-Canadian banks as well as the French-Canadian banks.


PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
[Stage Direction]
*M. DESlLAURIERS :
Has the Government taken into consideration the system of election by Proportional Representation, or is it the intention of the Government to take it into consideration during the present session? ,
George Green Foster: This matter is at present under the consideration of the Gov-ernement.


INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
[Stage Direction]
M. ARCHAMBAULT:
1.	Who were the Canadian representatives at the International Labour Conference last fall? .
2.	What was the amount expended in connection with this delegation?
3.	Who were the Canadian representatives at the Labour Conference at Paris?
4.	What was the amount expended in relation thereto?
Arthur Meighen: ~
1.	Government Delegates: The Honourable Gideon D. Robertson, Senator and Minister of Labour of Canada. The Hon. Newton W. Rowell, K.C., M.P., President of the Privy Council of Canada,, and Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Advisers to Dominion Government delegates : Mr. F. Acland, Deputy Minister of Labour of Canada. Mr. Loring C. Christie,

Legal Adviser to the Department of External Affairs of Canada.
As named by the Provincial Governments: Nova Scotia-Mr. Daniel A. Cameron, of Sydney, Member of the Provincial Legislature of Nova Scotia. New Brunswick-The Honourable C. W. Robinson, of Moncton, Member without portfolio of the Government of the Province of New Brunswick. Prince Edward Island-The Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, iC.M.G., M.P., of Ottawa. Manitoba-The Honourable Thos. H. Johnson, of Winnipeg,, Attorney General for the Province of Manitoba. Quebec-Mr. Louis Guyon, of Montreal, Deputy Minister of Labour for the Province of Quebec. Ontario-Dr. Walter A. Riddell, of Toronto, Deputy Minister of Labour for the Province of Ontario. Saskatchewan-Mr. T. M. Mol-loy,. of Regina, Secretary of the Bureau of Labour for the Province of Saskatchewan. Alberta-The Honourable C. R. Mitchell, of Edmonton, Provincial Treasurer of the Province of Alberta. British Columbia-Mr. J. D. McNiven, of Victoria, Deputy Minister of Labour for the Province of British Columbia.
Secretary of Canadian Delegation (and Adviser): Mr. Gerald H. Brown, Secretary of the Reconstruction and Development Committee of the Government of Canada.
Non-Government delegates, (recommendation as for employers received from the Canadian Manufacturers' Assn., and for *employees from the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.)
Employers' Delegate: Mr. S. R. Par ons, President, British American Oil Co., Ltd., Toronto, Ont.
Advisers to same: Mr. J. T. Stirrett, General Secretary, Canadian Manufacturers' Assn., Toronto, Ont.; Mr. E. Blake Robertson, Secretary,, Canadian Manufacturers' Assn., Ottawa, Ont.; Mr. J. B. Hugg, Canadian Manufacturers' Assn., Winnipeg, Man.; Mr. J. G. Merrick, Secretary, Employers' Assn., Toronto, Ont.; Mr. Sam. Harris,, The Harris Lithographing Co., Ltd., Toronto, Ont.
Workers' Delegate: Mr. P. M. Draper, Secretary-Treasurer, Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and President Ottawa Typographical Union, Ottawa.
Advisers to same: Mr. Tom Moore,, President Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; Mr. Arthur Martel, Vice-President, Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; Mr. Robert Baxter, Vice-President, Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; Mr. David
[Mr. Meighen.j
Rees, Vice-President,, Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; Mrs. Kathleen Derry, Member, Boot and Shoe Workers' Union.
2.	$20,320.13.
3.	Mr. F. A. Acland, Deputy Minister of Labour, was apointed by the Government as substitute for the Minister of Labour to attend a meeting of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office in Paris on January 26, 1920. Mr. Tom Moore, President of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, was chosen by the labour interests as substitute for Mr. P. M. Draper, of Ottawa, to attend the meeting of the foregoing Body in Paris as one of the labour representatives.
4.	Mr. Acland's account has not been presented. Mr. Moore's account will be paid by the International Labour Office.


CANADIAN MILITARY POLICE.
Mr. TOBIN:: 
Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes, at the request of the Imperial Government, and all expenses connected with this force are paid by the Imperial Government,
2.	Return of strength dated 23rd March, 1920, shows 255 all ranks.
3.	Guarding coolies of the Chinese Labour Corps being returned to China via Canada, while they are in this country.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	At present receiving $1,243.45 per annum, long service pension, based on 26 years' service, in accordance with the Militia Pension Act.
His present salary, though advanced by the Canadian Government, is recoverable from Imperial Government, and, therefore, is not paid out of Canadian funds.
7.	No.
8.	Answered by No. 7.


JAPANESE IN CANADA.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many persons of Japanese origin were residing in Canada in 1911?
2.	How many persons of Japanese origin are residing in Canada at present?
3.	How many persons of Japanese origin and residing in Canada have been naturalized as Canadian citizens under the old Naturalization Act, Chapter 77, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and the 1907-1908 and 1914 amendments thereto?
4.	How many persons of Japanese origin residing in Canada at present have been naturalized as British subjects under the Naturalization Act of 1914, Chapter 44?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	9,021.
2.	No information.
3.	7,534.
4.	106.


CHINESE IN CANADA.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How	many	persons	of	Chinese	origin
were residing in Canada in 1911?
2.	How many persons of Chinese origin are residing in Canada at present?
3.	How	many	persons	of	Chinese	origin
and residing in Canada have been naturalized as Canadian citizens under the old Naturalization Act, Chapter 77, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and the 1907-1908 and 1914 amendments thereto?
4.	How many persons of Chinese origin residing in Canada at present have been naturalized as British subjects under the Naturalization, Act of 1914, Chapter 44?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	27,774.
2.	No information.
3.	4,883.
4.	25.


GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN BOOKS.
Mr. CROWE:: 1.	Is it a fact that certain books printed: in the German or Austrian languages are admitted free of duty into Canada while those printed in English or French are subject to duty?
2.	If so, why?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to cancel this preference? If so, when. ?


Horn Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Tariff Item 172 provides for the free admission of "books printed in any language other than the English and French "languages or in any two languages not "being English or French or in any three "or more languages."
2.	By authority of Parliament, Customs Tariff Act, April 12th, 1907.
3.	The matter is under consideration.


HIGHWAY GRANTS.
Mr. GERVAIS:: What sums of money were paid up to date to each of the provinces by virtue of the law, 9-10 George V, Chapter 54, entitled: An Act to encourage the Construction and Improvement of Highways?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1. No payments have been made to date under the Act.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	When was work on the Hudson Bay Railway commenced?
2.	When was work on construction stopped: (a) on the railway, and (b) on the terminals?
3.	Is the grade completed to the Bay?
4.	If so, when was it completed?
5.	What mileage of steel is laid?
6.	When was this work completed?
7.	What mileage is yet to be laid?
8.	What was the cost of bridge over the Nelson river at Manitou Rapids?
9.	What was the cost of bridge over Nelson river at Kettle Rapids?
10.	When was Kettle Rapids bridge built?
11.	What was the total expenditure at the end of each of the fiscal years, March 31, 191415-16-17-18': (a) on the railway (b) on the terminals?
12.	What is the estimated cost of completing the railway by laying steel on the unfinished portion ?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 
FLAX FIBRE GRANTS.
Mr. MYERS:: ,
1.	Has any grant or aid been given by the Federal Government to any individual, company or companies to assist in the development of flax fibre in Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, what amount or amounts have been granted and in what years?
3.	What are the names of the persons or companies ?
4.	Has the Government any report as to the progress made in the development of flax fibre in Saskatchewan?


Hon. S. F. TOLMEE:: 1.	No.
2.	None.
3.	No persons or companies.
4.	No.


INCOME AND BUSINESS PROFITS TAX COLLECTION.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: At how many places in the different provinces, respectively, are officials of the Finance Department located for the administration and collection of the Income Tax and the Business Profits Tax?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Prince Edward Island-Charlottetown, one. Nova Scotia -Halifax, Sydney, two. New Brunswick- St. John, one. Quebec-Montreal, Quebec, two. Ontario-Ottawa, Kingston, Brock-ville, Belleville, Toronto, Hamilton, Brantford, St. Catharines, Cayuga, London, Walk-erville, Fort William, Stratford, thirteen. Manitoba-Winnipeg, Brandon, two. Saskatchewan-Regina, Weyburn, Prince Albert, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Yorkton, six. Alberta-Calgary, Edmonton, two. British Columbia-Vancouver, Nelson, Victoria, three. Yukon Territory-Dawson, one. Steps are being taken to open further offices at Dauphin, Man., Lethbridge, Alta., and Prince Rupert, B.C.


SMUGGLED AUTOMOBILES.
Mr. PEEVOST:: In what way does the Minister of Customs dispose of the smuggled automobiles seized by his department?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: The Minister of Customs gives his decision in the matter respecting the seizure, as provided by section 177 of the Customs Act.
If the automobile be forfeited by the terms of such decision, it is disposed of in the manner provided by section 143 of the Customs Act, that is, either by public auction, or as the minister sees fit instead of being sold by public auction.
Section 143 of the Customs Act is as follows : "Sales of goods forfeited or otherwise liable to be sold under this Act shall be by public auction, and after a reasonable public notice, and subject to such further regulations as are made by the Governor in Council; but, in any case, the minister may order vessels, goods, vehicles or things forfeited to be disposed of as he sees fit, instead of being sold by public auction."


INDIAN TRIBES-EMANCIPATION.
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Are there any Indian Tribes who, by petitions or otherwise have asked the Government to amend certain clauses of the Indian Act as regards their emancipation? If so, what tribes?
2.	Has the Government received any demands by petition or otherwise to amend the Indian Act, in order to emancipate them, from certain municipalities adjoining their reserves, or from certain individuals or corporations located in those municipalities?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes. Moravians of the Thames, Ontario.
2.	No.
\


WAR TAX STAMPS.
Mr. LESAGE:: 1.	Does the Government intend to amend the law which compels the retailer to affix a war tax stamp upon patent medicines and certain toilet preparations at the time they are sold to the consumer?
2.	Is the Government aware that in many cases the said stamps are not affixed as required by law?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Any announcement as to amendments to the Special War Revenue Act, 1915, will, as is customary in regard to taxation changes, be made in the Budget Speech of the Minister of Finance.
2.	In all cases brought to the attention of the Government prosecutions have followed in accordance with the Act.


HOARDING OP FOODSTUFFS.
Mr. LEDUC:: Does the Government intend to bring radical remedies to the high cost of living by investigating as to where food stuff: is hoarded or stored?


George Green Foster: The Government is not in a position to answer this question as put, unless it affirms a certain thing, namely, that the mere investigation of how much butter or other commodities are stored at a warehouse will have a radical effect on the high cost of living.


BUTTER PRICES.
Mr. LEDUC:: 1.	Is the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture aware that butter in cold storage has made a jump from 57 to 65 cents in one week?
2.	If so. is it the intention of the Government to take steps to prevent such increases in the future?


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE:: 1.	No. I am informed that the wholesale price of butter on the Montreal market varied between 60 and 66c from March 1st to March 25th. During that period butter was sold as low as 57 to 59c and as high as 68c. The high price was paid for butter of the finest quality and the lower prices for inferior quality, which accounts in part for the range in price.
2.	It does not appear to be practicable to prevent these increases or decreases in the price of dairy products.


CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT.
Mr. WHIDDEN:: 1.	Has the Government or any member thereof received any communication, written or verbal, from the Ontario Branch of the Dominion Alliance, or any officer thereof, in reference to the applicability to the province of Ontario of the legislation of last session known as An Act to amend the Canada Temperance Act?
2.	If so, -what was the nature of such communication?
3.	What answer, if any, has the Government
made thereto ?	-
4.	Has the Government received any resolution in reference to such legislation from the Dominion Committee on Liquor Legislation?
5.	If so, what is the nature of such resolution?	*
6.	Has the Government any information as to what organizations are included in the Federation known as the Dominion Committee on Liquor Legislation?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1. Yes.
2	and 3. On March 5 the President of the Privy Council received the following letter from Mr. C. E. Steele, President of the Ontario Branch of the Dominion Alliance:

the Government of Ontario and the Dominion Alliance.
We further appoint the following persons to represent this Board upon the Referendum Committee; The General Secretary, The Treasurer, Dr. Creighton, Dr. J. A. Long, and Mr. J. O. McCarthy, with Mr. Thomas and Mr. Coburn as alternates.
The Methodist Church, through its official representatives, will be ready to act with the Referendum Committee. We shall be glad to be informed as to any way in which we can advance the prohibition movement in this province.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) T. Albert Moore,
General Secretary."
(3)	Resolution passed by the Board of Home Missions and Social Service of the Presbyterian Church at its meeting in Toronto on March 17th;
" This Board of Home Missions and Social Service of the Presbyterian Church record their appreciation of Prohibition legislation of the various provinces and of the Federal Parliament, express their conviction that it is most desirable that the legislatures of all the provinces should request the Federal Government to take a plebiscite on the question of the fmportaion of liquor into dry provinces for beverage purposes at as early a date as possible, and, if possible, on a uniform date; and appoint delegates to be named by the Convener to represent the Church and to co-operate with the Ontario Referendum Committee and the Dominion Prohibition Committee in pressing for complete -prohibition throughout Canada of intoxicating liquor for beverage use."
6.	The following organizations are included in the Dominion Committee on Liquor Legislation:-People's Prohibition Association of B.C.; Social Service Council of Alberta; Social Service Council of Saskatchewan; Social Service Council of Manitoba; Ontario Branch of Dominion Alliance; Citizens' Committee of 100 of Ontario; AntiAlcoholic Leagues of Quebec; Quebec Branch of Dominion Alliance; New Brunswick Temperance Alliance; Social Service Council of Nova Scotia; P. E. I. Temperance Alliance; People's Prohibition Movement of Yukon.


ORLEANS ISLAND PUBLIC WORKS.
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	What are the names of the contractors who tendered for .the reconstruction or the repairs to be done at the wharves of St. Laurent, St. Jean, St. Francois and Ste. Famille, Island of Orleans, in the County of Quebec?
2.	To whom and for what amount have the works been awarded?
(Sir George Foster.!
3.	Does the Government intend to have those works executed at an early date?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to grant the numerous petitions signed by all the population of the Island of Orleans, asking for the expropriation of the wharf at Ste-Petron-ille, so as to make it a free wharf?


Hon. Mr. RETD:: 1.	St. Laurent-J. B. Gallibois, St. Pierre Montmagny, Que.; Trudel and Trudel, St. 'Irenee; Jos. Gosselin, Ltee., Levis; Thi-bault and Methot, Montmagny; O. Poliquin, Portneuf; Letourneau and Fortier, Montmagny; Beaumont and Boulanger, Montmagny; K. A. Morrison, Ottawa.
iSt. Jean-J. B. Gallibois, St. Pierre Montmagny; Methot and Thibault, Montmagny; Veilleux and Lemieux, Levis; J. iRaoul Boulanger, Montmagny; Jos. Gosselin, Ltee., Levis; Trudel and Trudel, St. Irenee; W. G. Charleson, Ottawa; O. Poliquin, Portneuf; Beaumont and Boulanger, Montmagny.
St. Francois-Jos. Gosselin, Ltee., Levis; Simeon Ratte, Ste. Anne de Beaupre; Trudel and Trudel, St. Irenee; Thibault and Thibault, and Paquet, Montmagny; Lachance, Ltee, Quebec.
St. Famille-Collin and Coulombe, Montmagny; Simeon Ratte, Ste. Anne de Beaupre; Beaumont and Boulanger, Montmagny; 0. Poliquin, Portneuf; Thibault and Methot, Montmagny; Trudel and Trudel, St. Irenee; Jos. 'Gosselin, Ltee, Levis.
2.	St. Laurent to Trudel and Trudel, for 819,042.97. St. Jean, to Methot and Thibault, $28,171.50. St. Famille and St. Francois contracts not awarded.
3.	St. Laurent contract to be completed July 24, 1920. St. Francois contract to be completed August 7, 1920.
4.	Matter under consideration.


THE LAST NATIONAL LOAN.
Mr. BECBENE:: 1.	What was the total amount subscribed in the last National Loan?
2.	What amount has the Government accepted ?
3.	What amount has been paid in full by subscribers, and what are their names?
4.	What amount has been partially paid and what' percentage?
5.	What amount is actually advanced by the hanks to subscribers who have not paid in full their subscriptions?
6.	What amount has the Government advanced to the banks in order to help them to carry the subscriptions not entirely paid?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	$673,000,000 (estimated).
2.	$643,800,000.
3.	March returns not yet received by department. Estimated about 90 per cent has

been paid up in full. There were some 830,000 subscribers through the various banks; the names of the subscribers are not furnished to the department by the banks except those requiring fully registered bonds.
4.	Estimated about 10 per cent.
5.	Department has no information.
6.	No amount has been advanced.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS . ORDERS' FOR RETURNS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough);
What was the value of goods, entitled to the British Preference, brought into Canada during the last fiscal year via American seaports, what American ports were thus utilized, and to what extent?

Mr. ETHIER:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and reports relating to the re-classification of the Civil Service by American efficiency experts in the employ of the Arthur Young Company; also all documents relating thereto, which have been submitted to, and received by the Civil Service Commission and comprising: (a) a list of names who, in consequence of such re-classification and subsequently thereto, resigned from the service; (b) the reasons given in support of such resignations, and (c) the nature of the duties of each person who resigned.


George Green Foster: I have already asked that this order be remodelled. Any one can see that the question involves an immense amount of unnecessary work.


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT AMENDMENTS.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Justice and the At-torneys-General of the different provinces of Canada, regarding the power of the Dominion of Canada to amend the British North America Act by its own Parliament.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With reference to this motion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the correspondence so far exchanged is in the nature of a purely informal, unofficial interchange of views upon the question and of a confidential nature, and therefore at present, there is no correspondence which it would be proper to bring down.


Mr. MORPHY:: Mr. Speaker, as this is rather an important question, I would like the minister to repeat this answer, which was quite inaudible in this part of the Chamber.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I said that the correspondence so far is in the nature of an unofficial, informal interchange of views upon the question and is of a confidential nature. There is, therefore, at present no correspondence which it would be proper to bring down.
Motion dropped.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOE PAPERS.
Mr. ROBB (for Mr. Archambault):: For a return showing (a) the total production of coal in Canada during the past ten years; (lb) how much of said coal was anthracite ; (c) the total importation of coal into Canada during the same period; (d) how much of same was anthracite; (e) the total exportation of coal from Canada during the past ten years, and (f) how much of this total was anthracite.	,


James Alexander Robb: For a copy of the specifications and plans for the drydock at Vancouver, British Columbia, for which a subsidy is being granted to J. Coughlan & Sons, Limited, along with a copy of the contract between the Government and J. Coughlan & Sons, Limited, for the construction of the said drydock.


James Alexander Robb: For a return giving a list of the names of all the officers employed at the Headquarters of the Militia Department, at Ottawa; their respective salaries; the date of their appointment, and the length of their services in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


ALIEN IMMIGRANTS AND CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP.
Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is essen-tian for the future national welfare of Canada that appropriate measures be taken by the Government to fit and prepare all immigrants of alien origin for assuming the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that this is the first occasion in our history that the subject matter of this resolution has been formally discussed by this House- an evidence, perhaps, of the extreme disregard which we have had in the past of the important subject of the Canadianiza-tion of our alien population.
For many years we have been receiving large numbers of newcomers, representing practically every nationality and every known tongue, every variety of dress and embracing both sexes of all ages, from the babe in arms to the grandfather and the grandmother-this motley crowd speaking eighty-five languages and dialects and representing fifty-three nationalities. I need scarcely point out that such a condition has created a problem which, at the present day
 \
at least, cannot be ignored by this country.	,
Let us look for a moment at the number of people who have come to our shores to make Canada their home. In the ten years from 1906 to 1915 inclusive there arrived more than 2,500,000 who came ostensibly to make this land their home, some temporarily, many of them permanently. They came, I believe, nearly all actuated by one idea-to live under better, conditions than those which they had experienced in their home lands. But they knew nothing oi Canadian life, of Canadian laws, of Canadian customs; many of them knew nothing of Canadian civilization. About one-third of the two and one-half million were from the continent of Europe, and this element especially would be described by the words which I have just used. They, too, came to this country with no knowledge of our language or our history. Many of them had lived under conditions which would be absolutely repugnant to Canadian people, and many of them brought to this country and adopted here the very same conditions under which they had been living in the lands which they had left. So far as citizenship is concerned we have treated these people with utter neglect. We have been too busy building railways, canals, factories and other important public works. We have been thinking of the opening up of our country and the settlement of its vast areas. We have been interested in policies, many of them of national importance, having in view the material welfare of Canada, but we have given very little thought indeed to the citizenship of our country; to the necessity, the importance and the methods of receiving these newcomers into Canadian citizenship. Perhaps the war did something to wake us up from the lethargy into which we had fallen in this regard. It assisted us at least in seeing that the condition that had been produced in this country by the receiving of this vast army of foreign people might give rise to a menace; indeed evidences were forthcoming that in some sections of our land there was such a feeling as . would constitute a menace to the welfare of this country. Canada is a young nation, and if her future is to be what we all hope it will be and what we all believe it can be, it is absolutely necessary that this question of citizenship receive greater attention than it has in the past. After all, the people of Canada are Canada's greatest asset. But I must say that we have among our people a large element which are an undeveloped resource, a resource which should be the

subject of great care and thought. The future citizen of Canada must not be the result of chance; he must be created by influences set in motion by the present Canadian people. Professor Fairchild, of Yale University, in his book on immigration, says:
The recent rapid development of communication has made the ease of immigration so great that we have been overwhelmed by the resulting problems. The movement of millions of people from one region to another is a phenomenon of prodigious sociological import.
In that phenomenal movement Canada has been sharing, the magnitude of Canada's problem is in proportion to the number of people she has been receiving from that movement as compared with her resident population. Professor Fairchild was directing the attention of the American people to the problem which immigration had produced for that nation. Our problem may be better appreciated if we illustrate it by comparing it with that of the United States. The largest number of immigrants which arrived in the United States in any one year was 1,285,349 in 1907. That meant an addition of about 150 immigrants to each 10,000 of the resident population of the United States. Canada's largest immigration was in the year J913, when 402,432 people came to this country, representing an addition of 500 immigrants to each 10,000 of our population. So that the number of immigrants which Canada was asked to absorb in that year was about three and a half times as great as that which the United States was called upon to absorb in the year of its greatest immigration. Both countries have come to realize the necessity of a more careful selection of immigrants. But the United States has gone further than that; within the last five or six years they have organized a vast effort for the purpose of Americanizing their people-not only the foreigners who dome to their shores now, but even native-born Americans of foreign parentage, and perhaps some also of American parentage.
Last year Canada made certain amendments to its Immigration Act, the chief purpose of which amendments was to exclude from Canada undesirable citizens. I shall not take time to enumerate those amendments, but if it is important that this Parliament should by legislation in the form of an Immigration Act take all necessary precautions to exclude undesirable immigrants from our country, surely it is of even greater importance that we should endeavour to reduce to as small a number as possible the undesirables who are now in our midst.
I think that a man would not be unreasonably optimistic who would believe that in the very near future we shall have a large immigration to Canada. If I were to give my own opinion-which, of course, would not be of much value-I would venture to predict that by the year 1940 we shall have 20,000,000 people in Canada, the greater portion of which will be newcomers to our shores.
Let me direct the attention of the House to another phase of this question. During the twenty-year period from 1900 to 1919 there were received into Canada 3,311,498 immigrants, of whom 1,188,946 were British. 1,268,793 American born, and 853,039 from other countries, but all of non-English parentage. Let me put this in another waj:	1,188,946 were British-born and
2,121,832 were non-British. This means that in the past twenty years we have had to absorb a number equal to twenty-five per cent of our total population. Not only is the problem one of number, but we can well understand that while a country of limited population such as Canada is may successfully absorb a certain number, when the number exceeds that to a very large degree, it may become quite impossible for us to absorb and assimilate the new comers to our country.
Another phase of the situation which exists in Canada is brought out by the figures of the Canada Registration Board. Their report shows that on June 22, 1918, there were in Canada of males sixteen years of age and over, 2,656,548, of whom 561,650 were alien born, and of those so born only 200,580 had become naturalized, so that we had in this class of males 361,070 who still acknowledged allegiance to a foreign country. I think every one will admit that this is not a desirable condition to exist in our country; that people who come to our land, especially those who come intending to make Canada their home, should become part of our life, should become naturalized citizens and should put themselves in a position to take upon themselves all the responsibilities of citizenship in our country.
Another phase of the situation is shown by these figures. According to the census of 1916 taken in the three Western Provinces, we find that out of a total population of 1,240,374 there of those of ten years oi age and upwards, 102,425, or 8.3 per cent were unable to speak English. This included, of course, native-born as well as foreign-born, and they were distributed fairly equally throughout the three provinces, with 37,504 in Manitoba, 40,126 in

Saskatchewan, and 24,795 in Alberta. Oi the different nationalities there represented, the Ukrainians show the largest percentage who do not speak English, with a percentage of 39.8 of those ten years of age and over. Of the Austro-Hungarians 35 per cent did not speak English, of the Poles 27.2 per cent, and of the Russians 27.1 per cent. These aie the figures as regards inability to speak English; but there is a still further phase of the question which I wish to bring to the attention of the House, and that is the number of illiterates in our country. In the three Western Provinces, out of a population of 1,240,374 of ten years of age and over, 92,732 or 7J per cent were reported as illiterates, the foreign-born furnishing 62,559 or 67J per cent of these. Each province seems to have its sharp of this class. Manitoba with 32,978, or 8.1 per cent of its population of ten years of age and over; 'Saskatchewan with 36,021, or 7.7 per cent, while Alberta had 23,733, or 6.4 per cent, and Winnipeg alone had 4,642 unable to read or write. I do not refer to the Western Provinces with the intention of showing that they are any worse than other parts of Canada. I use these figures merely because I have them and they are more up to date than any other figures I have for the country. But if we look at the condition of Ontario as reported in the census of 1911, we shall find, when we consider the age of the province and the comparatively small number of its population that are foreign-born, that the condition there is even more deplorable than that of the Western Provinces. According to the census of 1911 there were in Ontario 147,225 who could neither read nor write.


John Hampden Burnham: How old were they?


Michael Steele: I cannot give the ages.


John Hampden Burnham: We must have the ages, because some of them might be so young that they could not be expected to read or write.


Michael Steele: Yes, that would be expected. But 6.5 per cent of the total population was in that class. There are in Ontario to-day large numbers of foreign-born residents, and it is estimated that one-fifth of the present population of Toronto is foreign-born. Even old conservative Quebec is not free from this same condition, because figures of at least two or three years ago showed that about 105,000 of the population of Montreal were foreign-born.
In all this I am not casting one word of reproach on the foreign-born. I am using
[Mr. Steeled
these figures simply to show the situation which exists in Canada to-day, and this situation, as I said, creates a problem which we cannot ignore. This condition of illiteracy, this condition of non-English speaking-and when I use the term "nonEnglish," I include with that the other official language " French;" but I may be pardoned if throughout my remarks to-day I use the term "non-English" as illustrating the condition which exists in the greater portion of Canada at least. The fact that we have so many illiterates so many who do not speak and are not learning to speak the English language, so many who apparently do not desire to become naturalized citizens, creates a problem which we must face, and so long as this condition exists in Canada we cannot have a unified country. IBut to remedy the situation we cannot trust to the happy-go-lucky methods of the past.
The solution of this problem involves not only the commercial prosperity of Canada, but even the safeguarding of our national life. Whatever policy is adopted in Canada should have for its sole object the making of Canadians who will be absolutely one hundred per cent Canadian in spirit. We should endeavour so to .assimilate this population that we shall have one common standard of nationhood. To all the foreign-born who comfe up to the standard of admission Canada extends a hand of welcome, but every immigrant should be made to understand that this is a British country, that while he may continue to love his homeland, which in many cases hap had a glorious history and demands the admiration of its people, while he must not necessarily give up the use of his own language, in this country Canada's methods of life must be maintained. The inferior civilization of the native lands of these people cannot be transplanted to this country, and they should be made to understand that our laws and institutions must be respected, that in future Canada will be their home, and that their duty and allegiance and responsibility is no longer to the land of their birth but to the land of their adoption.
Canada as a nation has a duty to the foreigner. While she has a duty to the foreigner she has perhaps an even more important duty to herself and her future. In my opinion there are three prime requisites in our methods of dealing with the foreigners who come to bur shores. First, we must fit them for industrial life. A very large proportion of the immigrants from southeastern Europe come here as un-

skilled labourers. They come largely for the purpose of making a little money, and when that is made they purpose returning to their own land where they have left their families to reside during their absence. They serve a good purpose in this country, without a doubt, hut even these temporary residents should be compelled to contribute their utmost while in Canada to the country's needs, not only by their labour, but by their mode of life and their influence as citizens. All our immigrants iwho are engaged in industrial life in this country, especially Europeans, should be compelled to observe our laws of health and of society, for otherwise our social organism will suffer. The illiterate, non-English foreignei provides a fertile field for anarchy, Bolshevism, and the many other "isms" and manias that are cursing the world to-day, and from which no one suffers more than the same common labourer of foreign birth. Just in proportion as we remove his illiteracy and teach him to read and speak the English language, and teach him proper methods of living, do we increase his value as a national asset, and increase his value to himself and his family. Men who cannot speak our language are generally condemned to the hardest kind of labour and the lowest wages, and they will generally be found in the lowest ranks of our industrial life. It is manifestly unfair that the labour of 'the low-living illiterate foreignei should enter into competition with that oi the Canadian; but it is much worse when conditions are such that Canadian laboui is driven to compete with that of the Asiatic or European foreigner. In the first case, the /condition of the foreign labourer may be raised to some extent towards that oi the Canadian, but in the second case the condition of the Canadian labourer is sure to be brought down lower, towards that ol the foreigner.
I said that by compelling the foreign labourer to live under Canadian conditions we will foe doing him a service. Employers of labour testify that as soon as the labourer can speak and understand English, that moment his earning power and usefulness is increased. Testimony is given by American employers of labour that a man who knows, speakjs, and reads the language by which he is surrounded is worth on an average five dollars per week more than before he acquired that knowledge.
The second requisite, to my mind, is to fit these people for naturalization. We define the terms upon which a foreigner can secure naturalization in this country. We say to these people: We desire you to
become naturalized subjects of His Majesty, and when you are able to comply with certain conditions you will be received into the Canadian family. We say further, by our actions, at least, that we disapprove of a refusal or neglect on the part of any newcomer to become a full Canadian citizen, and yet we put forward no effort to fit them for taking upon themselves the duties and responsibilities of citizenship. We make no effort in fact to acquaint them even with the requirements of the naturalization law, not to make them familiar with what we [DOT]expect them to do. If we say, as we do, that a peflson /seeking naturalization in this country must have a knowledge of English or French, it seems to me it is our bounden duty to give them an opportunity to learn either English or French. In the United-States a few years ago a concerted effort was made by Congress to remove some of these disabilities in respect of the foreigner, and to provide meanls whereby they could become familiar with the need and the methods of securing haturalization. The results were amazing. Let me give a few figures taken from United States records. In 1910, there were 222,264 applicants for naturalization, and in 1915, 354,132 4 p.m. -an increase of over fifty per cent.
In 1919 there were about 650,000 applicants for naturalization. There is no doubt that much of this increase was due to the efforts put forward to give the foreigner such conveniences and opportunities as would enable him to comply with the requirements of thfo naturalization law.
The third requirement, I think, is to fit these men for the franchise. One of the chief responsibilities laid upon the newly naturalized citizen is the exercise of the franchise. Canada, we delight to say, is a democratic country; we are a democratic people, but if we as a democratic people are going to govern ourselves in a democratic way, we must do so wisely.


John Hampden Burnham: Does the hon. gentleman mean that if we aie to govern ourselves wisely, the better we govern ourselves the better example we will furnish to the foreigner because the foreigner is already able to judge of our standard?


Michael Steele: No, I had not that in *mind. I will allow the hon. gentleman to expand that idea which, I am' sure, is a very interesting one. But what I had in mind was,that if we claim to be a democratic country and are ruling in a democratic way, we must see that we do not reflect upon democracy by giving Canada a rule which is not truly democratic in all


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Does the hon. gentleman recall any city where there are no slums?


Michael Steele: The conditions which have existed in the past should not be allowed to exist in the Canada of the future and because slums existed in ancient cities and have existed in nearly all cities up to the present, is no reason at all why they should be allowed to exist in the cities of Canada. The homes of the foxeigners, their surroundings and the field of their labour, should be according to Canadian standards.

They should not be permitted to bring into this country the standards of life in the lands which they have left or to adopt these standards here and live according to them. They should be compelled to approach the Canadian standard. Not long ago, it is reported, a strike occurred among the foreign workmen in an American plant. They sought a conference with their employer and their demands were under three heads, as follows: They said they wanted a place to hang their hats and coats; they wanted a place to wash and they wanted an arrangement by which the foreman should stop kicking them. Whether that really occurred or not I cannot say but at all events it illustiates reasonably well, the conditions that exist in many of our labour fields in our country. The foreign labourer is not always properly treated and especially is he not properly treated by his own foreign employer.
But not only should the labourer of foreign birth be looked after; the foreign-born woman needs attention and all the more so now that in a few years at most she will probably be adding her voice to the solution of Canada's problems. She has been entirely ignored in the past and little or no provision has been made for her instruction-little or no thought given to her citizenship. These women will be the mothers of hundreds of thousands of boys and girls who will be brought up to be future Canadians. Statistics show that the foreign-born woman rears just about twice as many children as the native-born woman rears and if the old saying is true that the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rocks the world, we say that the hand that rocks the Canadian cradle should be the hand of a woman possessed of the Canadian spirit.
The foreigner should also be protected as far as possible from the exploiter and the-imposter. His ignorance of our language, laws, customs, institutions and business methods should not be taken advantage of by any person. Many of these people come from countries where the system of government is unlike that which exists here. In the homeland of many of these people government means tyranny, taxation and terror and it is easy for them to believe that all governments are the same and to become imbued with a feeling of opposition to all government. It is then that the agitator gets in his work and sows the seed which too often leads him to lose confidence not only in the Government but also in society, in the church and in his fellow men. Bol-

shevism and revolution are held up by the agitator as the only remedy. The man who comes under that influence cannot be expected to be a true Canadian; he is apt to lose the spirit.
Then there is the man 'who exploits the foreigner commercially, and robs his pocket, and the foreigner thus exploited -in apt to lose the Canadian spirit and to believe that all Canadians are equally dishonest. There was drawn to my attention a few months ago a case which illustrates this point effectively. In a certain part of the province of Ontario a middle aged man, who came from Germany a few years ago and has during his residence in this country proven himself an industrious well-behaved fellow, desired to become naturalized. He knew that lawyers are the men who are supposed to be able to advise on legal matters and he consulted a lawyer.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: That is the man.


Michael Steele: The lawyer advised the man and incidentally, before he left his office, asked him for $6 in payment of his fees. The application for naturalization was filed in the proper way and although the Naturalization Act of 1919 says distinctly that no person of German birth can secure naturalization in this country for a period of ten years after the passing of that Act, the man in question was not so told. His application for naturalization was filed and about the time report was passed upon it he received an additional bill from his legal adviser for |14. It just cost this man $20 to consult a lawyer who did not tell him the truth.


Edmond Proulx: Who was the lawyer.


Michael Steele: Can we expect that man to feel kindly towards Canadian institution? Now offenses of this kind are not confined to lawyers. That profession is responsible for quite sufficient we know; but even some of our judges in Canada to-day are receiving the applications of German and Austrian citizens, are passing upon them, and are recommending the applicants for naturalization, well knowing, or at least they should know, that no naturalization certificates can be granted that class of people. What is the result? The applications are sent on to Ottawa, but naturalization certificates are not forthcoming, and the man who has made application naturally desires to know why he is not receiving a certificate. Then the political exploiter comes in. " Oh," he says, " you cannot expect to get anything from that 52
Government at Ottawa." I am not making these remarks with any political significance at all because perhaps if any other government were in power the same story would be told. The result is that that man becomes an enemy not simply of the present Administration but of any Canadian Government. There is no doubt such a man has been badly used and I would call upon the Government to see that this practice among the lawyers and the judges of our country in deceiving German residents who are applying for naturalization, is stopped.
But perhaps the most dangerous exploiter is the political type, whether it be a person, or a newspaper or, as sometimes happens, the two combined. They plead the cause of the foreign born, appeal to their prejudices, stir up whatever racial feeling there may be, and in this way antagonize these people against prevailing Canadian conditions. They are constantly endeavouring to persuade foreign born that they are unjustly treated, that those in authority are their enemies, that their liberties are- being interfered with-that, in fact, 'Canada is more Prussian than Germany. I venture the opinion that a very large measure of the antagonism of the foreign-born to things that are Canadian is due to these two classes of people-the social agitator and the political exploiter. They are both imposters and future events will prove that they are, and have been, the worst enemies of the communities they are to-day professing to guide. Both these classes make their appeals in the name of British fair play knowing well that they are only doing so in order that they may, so far as they are able, destroy that same spirit of British fair play. The man or newspaper which seeks to excite the prejudice of the foreign-born at this time of our history against Canadian law in order that for selfish purposes he or it may claim to be the friend and protector of the alien, or the alien born, acts unworthily and is one of the chief instruments in destroying Canadian unity.
The Government to my mind should at this time set on foot a great movement for the Canadianization of the foreigner in our land. We owe this to the people who come among us, and we owe it to the nation itself. The future welfare of our nation is largely dependent on the ideals of its citizens. Canadianization is not only an intellectual process but it is closely associated with our economic, industrial, social and political progress and prosperity, and



it makes for the very life of Canada. The foreigner should be made to feel that he will get a square deal in Canada, but he should also be made to see that Canada must also get a square deal from him. He should be taught that his children have greater opportunities in Canada than anywhere else in the world, and that is so because of our resources, our laws, and our free institutions. I would go further and say that the foreigner as he lands in this country should be made to feel that he is here on probation, and that if he does not make good, back he will go in the course of time to the land he has left.
There have been rather extensive efforts made in this country along these lines by certain bodies who, however, are unable to co-operate and unite their efforts. Perhaps no organization in the country has made a greater and a more genuine effort to do something for the Canadian foreign born than the Daughters of the Empire. I am glad on this occasion to be able to say a word on behalf of that society, and to commend the splendid efforts that it has been making during recent years to bring under the influence of our Canadian life and spirit the young people of our country.
The Toronto Board of Trade have for several years been studying this matter and are bringing it to the attention of the authorities wherever it can be done. Our churches and our settlement workers have also taken the matter up, and our Western provinces are giving it very great consideration. I think that every person who looks into it feels that these agencies are unable to adequately handle the situation as it exists. Some paramount unifying body is needed which can induce all the existing, agencies to work in co-operation, and even then the task will be one that will be almost impossible to overtake. I would therefore urge the need and the wisdom of the Federal Government undertaking a thorough and extensive Canadianization programme which, with the aid of the provinces and the municipalities, will produce results which will materially promote the future unity and prosperity of our people. The task of preparing this army of foreign born people for a full and intelligent appreciation of the higher social, industrial and political life of Canada, and to produce within them a right point of view with respect to their relationship to the State, is difficult at the best. But if this mass of raw material now in our land is to be remodelled into good Canadian citizens, Canada must [Mr. Steeled
pay the price. This is a service we owe not only to the foreign-born and would-be Canadian citizens, but owe also as a matter of self-protection to the state.
And I bring this subject forward not with the thought of restricting the opportunities of the foreign-born nor of restraining them from making the best of their life in Canada, but rather for the purpose of enlarging their opportunities and of assisting them in securing their full part in the blessings and privileges and opportuities which Canada so lavishly possesses and which she offers so generously to her people.


Mr. SAMUEL CHARTERS (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word or two in support of the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Steel) . I think the House will agree with me that he is to be commended for placing so much valuable information before us. The Canadianization of the foreign element is a question of interest to the people of the whole Dominion, and it will not be settled until it is properly settled. Doctor like, my hon. friend very carefully and, I think, very accurately diagnosed the disease and then proceeded to suggest many remedies that might be employed in order to ameliorate, if not cure, the disease. There are very many conditions, he said, which called for immediate action, if such action is at all possible.
Reference was also made to the question of the naturalization of our foreign element. Let me suggest one or two instances' in addition to those which have been already given. In 1918 the registration made of all males over sixteen years of age showed that there were 110,000 Austrians, of whom 70,000 still retained their nationality; 32,616 Italians, 27,000 of whom had not been naturalized; and 47,777 Chinese, of whom only 625 were naturalized. This is evidence that the foreign population is not here for the purpose of becoming Canadianized, but rather for the .purpose of making what money it can and, in the great majority of cases, returning to its native land to live in happiness and contentment. When that is so we have a right to consider what is the duty of Canada in connection with a solution of the problem.
The foreign element is responsible for very many of the unatisfactory conditions in the slum districts to which reference has been made. For instance, in 1907 in the Province of Ontario there were no fewet that 6,120 undesirable immigrants dealt with by the authorities, with this result: 1,51" patients were sent to hospitals for the insane, at a cost to the province of $227,550;

there were 4,314 prisoners in jail, which cost the province $61,329.23; and there were 289 prisoners in the central prison at a cost to the province of $25,425.80, making a total cost for those 6,120 persons-every one of whom had been brought into the province under the laws of the Dominion-$314,315.03 for that one year. Since that time many deportations have been made, and the Immigration laws have of course been improved, but notwithstanding that the undesirable element continues to flow into the larger cities, and it is a very conservative estimate to say that upwards of $3,500,000 has been expended upon this class of people during' the past twelve years. They are responsible for a very large proportion of the crime that exists in the country, and they are .also responsible for a great deal of the agitation that is disturbing the Dominion at the present time.
Following the conditions in Ontario, I might give you, Mr. Speaker, an example of what is happening in one of- the western provinces. A press despatch dated from Yorkton, Sask., April 8, 1919, is as follows:
Thirty criminal cases, including murder, incest, illegal shooting, assault, perjury, comprise the criminal docket of the Court of King's Bench which opened its sittings here this afternoon. Foreigners are involved in every one of the thirty cases.
The same conditions are brought out in the report of Mr. Perry, Commissioner of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, which was tabled a few days ago. Speaking of the action of the foreign element in the West he says:
They have shown little appreciation of the Just and fair treatment meted out to them by the people of this country. They have shown themselves to follow and support the extremists who -play upon their ignorance and appeal to their national prejudices and sympathy for the Central Powers. Bolshevism finds a fertile field among them and is assiduously cultivated by the ardent agitator.
The assimilation of our large alien population is of the greatest importance and it demands wise and sympathetic action and constant attention.
Speaking of the literature that is being circulated, he says:
A -number of convictions have been secured but there is a flood of pernicious and mischievous literature not on the prohibited list. Under the cloak of freedom of thought and speech, this literature is being spread for the avowed purpose of overturning democratic government and destroying the foundation of civilization. Appeal is made to British fair play to protect them in their efforts to destroy British fair play.
In spite of these conditions a considerable number of our people are anxious to bring 52i
into Canada very large numbers of foreign-ersTn order chiefly that our farms and factories may be supplied with very much needed help. Important as it is that such help should be provided, I think it would be a very great mistake indeed if conditions were permitted to be created under which twenty or thirty millions of foreigners should be brought into -Canada in the next twenty years. We must have Canadians. We cannot Canadianize these people sufficiently fast to enable them to be assimilated as Canadians. So the greatest mistake we could make would be to bring in such a very large number of people. What we must do is to bring in picked people-men who are in sympathy with Canadian aims, and with its British institutions. If we do that we will succeed. If we proceed along the other line, I am convinced that we will have merely a population instead of a nation- we will be a house divided against itself.; and we have the strongest authority for the statement that such a house cannot stand.
That thinking people all over Canada are taking steps as I suggested a moment ago to meet and deal with this question is evidenced in many quarters. For instance, the president of the Board of Trade of Toronto, Mr. Kenneth J. Dunstan, at their annual meeting last January, made this statement:
Canada may expect large foreign immigration within the next few years and it is imperative that adequate steps be taken to teach not onlv the English language, but also the fundamental principles of our Government and our ideals of citizenship. It is intended to actively aid in the organization of a national movement in favour of a Canadianization policy, which will help the foreign-born and their children to appreciate our form of Government, our laws and their administration, and also to appreciate the responsibilities and duties which go with the privileges of such citizenship.
I think his statement will meet with a very ready response. Every campaign that has been carried on unitedly by our people has succeeded. That campaign, if inaugurated, will succeed in doing a very great service not only to the foreign element but in arousing the interests of our people to the necessities of the situation. To make such an effort successful there must be some backing from the Administration. Therefore I would suggest that the Government deport all foreigners found engaged in unlawful agitatioii and enforce the law to the letter against all citizens who are convicted of similar conduct.
The -Government should assist by substantial federal -grants the provincial author-

tise in the education of the children of foreigners. Such grants should be conditional upon the flag flying over every school, and every day there should be some exercises to emphasize the meaning and value of Canadian citizenship. Every newspaper printed in a foreign language should be required to print in English translations of all articles dealing with national Canadian questions. The Immigration Department should give special encouragement to immigrants from the old landis and from those countries whose people have shown a disposition to become Canadians. These suggestions are worthy of consideration by the Government and by the members of the House. The Government of the day and all those who have to do with the enactment of laws should have before them as faT as possible the old Gladstonian declaration to the effect that all Governments must pass legislation to make lit easy to do right and difficult to do wrong. To the extent that we follow that course we shall speedily succeed in creating a sound, united Canadian nationality.


Mr. H. H. HALLADAY (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, to my mind, this is one of the most important motions that has come before the House this year, because on the success or failure of our educational system depends the success or failure of ourselves as a nation. Education is to-day a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and rightly so. But to my mind the Government would be well advised to start a federal Department of Education for the purpose of bringing together the heads of the Departments of Education in the different provinces and formulating, if possible, some uniform plan. 'The curricula in the different provinces vary almost as much as the systems of education in some of the foregn countries. Pupils who move from one province to another find the systems so changed that they are sometimes put back two grades. If a Department of Education were established in Ottawa we could get these educational men together and bring about some uniformity in that regard. We could also correct a fault which is found in all provinces, and which I call the one-man system. Under our present educational system, every student who enters school and does not complete his course must struggle through the same routine as that which applies to the man who reaches the top. In fact, we are educating the graduate but not the multitudes who never become graduates. Of the thousands who enter our public schools, 
from fifty to seventy-five per cent never enter High School; of the thousands who enter High School very few pass on to the university, and of the thousands who enter university many never graduate. Our system is so- set that the multitude must struggle along the same route which is followed by the man who completely finishes his educational course. If we had a Department of Education at Ottawa, with the proper man at the head of it, we could start a system throughout Canada which would tend to develop in the body who leaves public school an idea of what kind of work he ought to engage in. Not one in a thousand men finish their careers in the line of work upon which they first started out; they stumble along from year to year and from job to job, and sometimes they fin-ally land in the job that the good Lord intended them -for. I -believe that we could establish a system under which we could develop in the boy *wh-o leaves school the tendency towards a particular line of work-his ability to -saw to a line; to use a square; to -weld a piece of iron; to use-in a simple way, perhaps-a surveyor's instrument; to keep books; and so on. In that way he has some idea or his parents have -some idea of what work he is best fitted to do. Our girls, too, would know more about the -work that God intended them to do.
Then, we have another difficulty which to my mind is worse th-an the one I have mentioned. Up to the age of six or seven years our children are told every day to go out and play; their whole education up to that time consists in what they get from play. But when they go to school they are put in a straight row of seats and if they attempt to move or to speak to their little companions on their right or left, they are immediately corrected. T-he strictness of our discipline takes the individuality from the child. It is true that we mu-st have discipline, but in our method o-f enforcing discipline we are taking away the child's individuality. I believe that these little children could siit around the school room in moveable seats and their education carried on in such a way as not to do away with all the benefit they have received through their play in the days before they started going to school. The child must know what discipline is, but he must still have that freedom, that opportunity for his love of play, that individuality, which -have been instilled into him up to the time when he fiist enter-s school. For these reasons I think that the Dominion Government would

be well advised to exercise some supervision over our educational system through a Department of Education at Ottawa.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West):: Mr. Speaker, the House and the country are indebted to the member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) for bringing to our attention a question which is, to my mind, of very great importance. The motion deals with something which this (Government should have taken up long ago. In the past the Governments of the day have been satisfied to bring people to Canada from Central Europe, set them in colonies, and leave them there. They have treated them about the same as we might treat imported horses or cattle which were brought here to perform agricultureal work and receive no further attention. The Governments of the past have failed to Tealize the necessity of Can-adianizing these people, -and on that account they deserve strong condemnation. But the leaders of these people who have been neglected by the -Government have in their own colonies carried out a policy of segregating their followers from -Canadian-born citizens for the purpose of exploiting them in elections and otherwise, -and the result has been very serious to the foreign-born population of our country. I understand that throughout the Northwest to-day you can find large numbers of people who have been in Canada many years, yet who do not sufficiently understand the English language to carry on business. This segregation of the foreigner from the native-born citizen of -Canada has enabled the foreigner's selfish leaders to develop prejudices that are very difficult to remove and (which aTe o-ften carried on to the second generation. Unless some steps are taken by this Government-steps that are beyond the reasonable responsibilities of Provincial Governments-this condition of affairs will not be improved with -any rapidity, and the state of things. which we find to-day will be perpetuated. So that the member for South Perth has made -a distinct contribution to the work of the session by bringing this matter forward. Most of the provinces have done something, but the Federal authority has entirely neglected its responsibilities- in this regard. The first really effective measures which have been -adopted in any part of Canada for Canadianizing the foreign-horn are to be credited to the Government of Manitoba, and the success that that Government has had in its new school legislation with respect to the Canadianizing of the foreigner warrants us in believing that similar measures
adopted in other provinces with assistance from this Government in other directions would produce the quickest and most important results. What Manitoba -has done is having its effect in the other provinces of western Canada, and it will not he very long before Saskatchewan -and Alberta will follow the example of Manitoba, because force of public sentiment will compel them to do so. Already those provinces have gone a considerable distance in that direction, and the Governments of those provinces are showing their sense of responsibility. In the United -States it has been recognized that the Americanizing of the people of foreign birth is a proper federal responsibility. That opinion rests on sound ground, and the Canadianizing of the foreigners of this country is likewise a federal responsibility. It is necessary and wise that the provinces should co-operate, in this work. The authority they -have in regard tc schools places the provincial power in a very strong position ot assist in this work; but I do not think that this Government has done its share; it has certainly never taken any initiative in inaugurating and carrying through a broad policy in this- direction.
The Canadianizing of the people of Canada i-s perhaps.one of the most important things that this Government has to do. It is fundamental in a new country like this that the people should understand our institutions; that they should learn our standards-of living and understand something of the fabric of our society. This country to-daj is in the making. If we allow those who have come to ns to go on as we have been allowing them to drift in the past, without proper instruction as to our institutions or the character and duties of our citizenship, and -if we add to them other hordes of foreigners Who may come to this land in the years that are approaching, we shall have no ground whatever to anticipate that we shall have anything like a unified country in this Dominion. Unless those hundreds of thousands who have come in and those who may come in aTe Canadianized, we shall have in this country a serious' situation, and with every year the problem will become more difficult of solution. Already this is a problem of very great magnitude in Canada. We have it in our large cities to a limited degree, but it i-s much more serious in the wide agricultural areas where the people are isolated and segregated into communities of their own race -and speech. And every year that passes adds to the difficulty of a final solution of this question.

In 'may sections of Western Canada the electors of foreign birth ate in control of local affairs; they exercise a great influence on provincial policies 'at the present time, and they form an ifnportant element in deciding the policies of the Dominion. It seems to me that it should be very plain to every man who has the power to think that the education and instruction of those people is one of 'the first and primary obligations of this Government. It is bad enough to have a big foreign population in a city, but there they have an environment that assists very materially in giving them information and instructing them in our principles of government. Their children go to public schools where they mix with children of British parentage; they are surrounded on every side by those who understand our institutions; they see the standards of living that have been set up, and little by little they are inevitably influenced thereby. But in those sections of the West where they are segregated into isolated colonies, they have none of this environment; they have extremely limited opportunities of studying Canadian ideals, and it is not surprising that they should be slow in acquiring anything like an adequate knowledge of the duties of Canadian citizenship. My judgment is that Federal aid should be given in generous measure for the purpose of instructing the adults of foreign nationalities who are in or who may come to this country, both in the language of the country and in the principles of citizenship of this country. This is a responsibility which rests primarily upon this Government' and upon this Parliament. When this work is added to that done by the schools conducted by the provincial authorities, it would be possible to have every member of a household of foreign birth being instructed at the same time in those things that make good Canadian citizens. In my limited association with foreigners in our city and elsewhere I have found that they show profound appreciation of the kindness of those who take an interest in their welfare. They are most responsive to kindly treatment, and they are quick to take instruction when it is offered to them by those who, they have reason to believe, are not serving any selfish purpose. But, unfortunately, so little interest has been displayed by the Dominion Government and such scant consideration has been shown by society at large to the problem of bringing the foreign-born citizen up to the standard set for the native-horn, that we have made very little progress in that direction. Progress has heen -made by the slow process of ex-
ample; and while I admit that it is potent, something more than that is necessary in order that results may be achieved in a short period of time.
This response to kindly treatment is illustrated in a very special and remarkable way in Manitoba. The Manitoba Government under the Premiership of the Hon. T. iC. Norris, has been able to convince the Galicians, Poles and other foreigners in that province that by insisting upon their children going to school, the Government is doing them a great kindness. It has taken a little while to convince them of that, but since the Act was passed three or four years ago the great majority of the Galicians and Poles and other foreigners in Manitoba have been brought to see that the measures enacted by the Provincial Government for the instruction of their children give them a better *chance to compete in every walk of life, add to their prosperity and help to (bring them up to the same level as the native-born in business and social intercourse. These people place a very high value upon this instruction, and the parents who are unable to converse in the language of the country take great pride in their *children being able to do so. They have found that by taking their children who have learnt the language of the country with them when they go to market or to the store, they make very much better progress in their dealings, and they are naturally proud that their children can take their part in ordinary conversation wherever they may happen to be. This is a most gratifying feature of the Canadian-izing efforts that have been put forward in the province of Manitoba, and it should encourage this Government to take this question under very careful advisement to determine just what steps can be taken by this Parliament to supplement what is being done by the provincial governments, particularly in the West, where the work has been done to the best advantage, and where it most needs to be done, because of the isolation in which many of these people live. The time has passed when this country can bring in Mennonites, Doukhobors, Galicians or any other class and after planting them down in a wide agricultural area, say to them: Now, we have no further interest in you. You cannot make a country in that way. The character of a country depends upon the character of its people, and if we leave these people to themselves we cannot expect to build up in Canada the kind of a country we are capable of building up by intelligent effort. I remember

a titne when even the British-born newcomer to Canada found himself isolated in this country, and in the city of Toronto we found it necessary to organize a league, which we called the British Welcome League. We had a building open to receive men and women of British birth the day they reached the city, and they found friends at once in the officers of the league who would advise them where to go, when to go, and what to do to get a start. That is what should be done with every man and woman of every family that comes to Canada, whether they be British or Galicians. It would start them off with the idea that they had come to a country where they were welcome. I hope that every pian, woman and child who comes to Canada in the future will be welcomed in that way, and will be instructed as rapidly and as fully as possible in the requirements of good citizenship. We must, of course, insist upon obedience to the laws of this -country, and that of course means that we must instruct the newcomers as to what the laws of the country are. We must teach them in the kindest and the most efficient way what they must do to perform their full duty beside the native-born citizens.
I agree with the mover of this resolution (Mr. iSteele) that in the future we must deal with our new citizens very differently from what we have done in the past. I believe this is a matter of self-preservation. I believe it is also a plain duty that we owe to those who come here to make their homes in this country. We in Canada have the greatest opportunity that has ever been given to any people since history began. My vision of Canada is that at the end of this century she will be one of the greatest nations in the world, one of the most populous, most powerful, and most prosperous nations in the world. Canada enjoys the finest climate that can be found anywhere, and advantages of soil and climate and natural resources that make it possible for us to build up in this country the most virile race that can be found in any part of the globe. But those who tcome to us not understanding our institutions must be instructed and educated and inspired with the high ideal of service to this .country as Canadian citizens, and it is the -bounden duty of this Government to take the initiative in this -work .


Mr. F. B. STACEY (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. 'Steele) deserves the congratulations of this House for bringing before us the subject matter of his resolution. I think
that is due him because primarily his resolution has to do with the social and mental and moral life of citizens, and indirectly with their economic welfare. It requires no argument to-day, I am sure, to prove that men are worth a great deal more than money, that boys are infinitely more valuable than business, and that girls are to be considered before goods,-in a word, that people are of vastly more significance than either their possessions or their -politics.
The resolution speaks of alien immigration, and the proper education of alien immigrants. The immigration question is not a new one, but, as has been pointed out, -any education looking towards citizenship ,on the part of these people, is practically a new thing so far as this and -5 p.m. other Parliaments of Canada are concerned. The war has taught us among other things that the quality and character of our citizenship has a great deal to do with the spirit that will be manifest when the nation is in danger- the spirit that is necessary for the perpetuation of our national life. In the closing years of the last century, and indeed until the war began, it would seem that the only consideration in immigration was the question of numbershow many can we induce to come to the Dominion of Canada? I think to-day we are not emphasizing quantity; the tendency is rather to emphasize quality.
In order to understand the matter -aright it -seems to m-e that we should be agreed at any rate upon one thing, namely, the viewpoint from which this -whole subject of immigration -should be -considered. In a word, what is the ultimate object in securing immigration -to this country? What have we really in mind? What ife the goal in view? In the last analysis we might agree that the national welfare -is the fundamental consideration and that any policy -that has to do with immigration -should have in view not sectional welfare or local interest but the national welfare and prosperity. If that be -so, and I think -possibly we could agree upon that, our aim in the securing of immigration will -become somewhat clearer. We will Tealiz-e that it is not nece-ss-ary to relieve the old nations of -any -surplus population which they may have. It may -do that and from their standpoint they will -certainly favour a policy which will relieve them of -their surplus population. They would like to have their -social problems solved but I claim it is not our business to undertake an immigration policy that

must remove it from the realm of sentiment and place it upon a big, broad, and national basis. As I see it, iSir, the question in the last analysis amounts to this:	Is British
Columbia to be maintained for a white Canadian citizenship, or is it to be held in reserve for an Oriental population? if the former is conceded then the influx of Orientals must be restricted; and another great question in that province to-day, coming to us from all kinds of organizations, is along the line " Shall we any longer permit land to be held in fee by the Oriental or shall he even be allowed to lease it?" I recognize the fact that the settlement of this question may involve somewhat serious international complications. Probably it does, but so far as our province is concerned the question is one which must be faced, and faced bravely and fearlessly, in the very immediate future, so that we in the far West may be able to make some provincial contribution to the Canadianiza-tion of our entile citizenship. At present there is no prospect whatever of our being able to do that if any large immigration on the part of settlers and residents from the Orient is permitted. Again I wish to say that I am exceedingly glad that the hon. gentleman (Mr. -Steele) has introduced this resolution which has primarily to do with the social, moral, and mental life of our coming citizenship, and I congratulate him upon his course.
Mr. JOHN W. EDWARDS (Frontenac): I do not intend to occupy more than a few minutes this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I merely rise to add my commendation to that which has been already tendered to the member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) for his most interesting and instructive speech, and to say that I place myself in accord with his resolution. I shall refrain from making any extended remarks, for the reason that I have a motion on the order paper which I hope to bring up after the Easter recess, and which necessarily follows to some extent along the lines of the argument which has been advanced this afternoon. However, I did not want any hon. member to understand that I was withdrawing my motion, because it seems to me it is somewhat different from that now -before the House in proposing means to bring about the same ends which my hon. friend has in view. I shall therefore wait until that occasion to place before the House some arguments in favour of a Federal Bureau of Education, which I think is essential in the interests of the country.

(Mr. JOHN H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) : Mr. -Speaker, this is probably the most important question that could be brought before the House of iwhat one might call " indirect nationality." I regret very much indeed, Sir, that the Opposition seems to take no interest in this important question.
Some hon. (MEMBERS: <Oh yes, we do.
-Mr. BURNHAM: The afternoon has worn itself away and the discussion seems to be drawing to a close, yet none of the oracles of wisdom on the other side of the House have ventured on this important question to make a remark which would be of the least benefit to the country at large. We expected something from them; perhaps we expected too much. They stand excused if they have not any ideas, but I did give them credit for having at least one idea on this important subject.
But what am I to say about the Farmers' Party? They seem to be absolutely oblivious of the whole matter. They represent primarily the West, but they have not even awakened to the fact that there is discussion proceeding on this subject. This is, to my mind, the saddest feature of all, and it shows that education in this country above all things must begin at home. Let us begin here in this House and educate hon. members who sit opposite us.up to the high possibilties of their station.
-Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Hampden Burnham: 
John Archibald Maharg: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burnham) expresses great surprise that the members from the West who have a particular interest in this matter have not seen fit to take any part in the discussion. Well, though we were not taking any part in the discussion we were indeed much interested in wha-t was going on. Hon. members must have noticed the attitude of gentlemen on the other side in regard to this particular question. We have not in the past heard very much from the hon.


Mr. H. P. WHIDDEN (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to continue the discussion of the resolution moved by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) I desire to express my appreciation of its importance, and to give expression at the same time to two or three ideas that have been in my mind for a number of months. In the first place, while the problem of immigration is closely related to the resolution submitted to us, it is hardly contained in that resolution. It would seein that this resolution is an attempt to get at the problem of assimilation. It deals more particularly with the foreigners we already have in this country. With that in mind, is it not well for us to recognize the fact that we have a considerable body of foreign-born people in this country, and that these people may become a great liability, or a great asset? Much depends upon how we treat them, what we do with them, what we make it possible and necessary for them to do with themselves. I do not believe that we can (Canadianize a million and a half of foreign-born people by mere mechanical processes. If they are to live with us, we want to make it possible for them to become part of us. If we do not want them to live with us, the sooner we get rid of them the better. While, personally, I have fairly strong convictions with regard to the need of a rather severe immigration , policy, and while 3 am satisfied we should see to it that naturalization laws of a strict character are put into force, I am inclined to think that with regard to the better type of foreigner living in Canada we cannot coerce him into the possession of the Canadian spirit. We can show him with all seriousness, and in a very definite and positive way, what the laws of the land are; wa can explain to him the difference between our institutions and the institutions that he was glad to escape from on the other side of the Atlantic; but with it all, ' I am inclined to believe, we must in some way or other, as a nation,.as communities, and as individuals, endeavour to make use of a broader and a deeper socializing process than can be contained merely in legislation. All the legislation that we have in connection with the admission of foreign-born peoples I think I believe in, but now, what are we to do with those who are here? Has not the Federal Government some responsibilities in connection with the prob-

lem of initiating the foreign-born people into real Canadian citizenship? They brought these people to Canada. Surely this is more than a provincial problem. The fixed educational institutions of our country are provincial, that is, those that we call educational institutions; but 1 am inclined to think that the educational process is a much greater one than is usually considered to be linked up with, and the purpose of, the so-called public school. I believe, as every member of this House doubtless believes, that at the centre of the Canadianizing process for the foreigner there will always be the public schools; but there are other influences at work, and there should be still other influences, operating to the end that these men and women who have come to our shores may come to understand what Canada is, and what it is to become a Canadian. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) urged, all too briefly I think, the importance of the education of the adult alien. Merely giving attention to the training of the child in the school will never enable us to overtake the problem that is on our hands. There are the grown-up boy and the grown-up girl, who will never go to school again and who have never gone to school in this country. There are the impressionable young man and young woman and there are perhaps a very few of the older foreigners who are susceptible to instruction along the lines that will make possible their understanding of the simple fundamentals of Canadian history, Canadian institutions, Canadian customs, Canadian laws and Canadian community life at its best. The details of any such programme certainly are not for us to consider here to-night, but I am yet to be convinced that it is impossible to help, especially in the cities, a larger number of the grown-ups by evening classes, and by the use of moving pictures of the kind that will make them understand. I have been informed on good authority that in our greatest city, the city of Montreal, out of a total foreign-born population of 105,000, only 6,000 are reached througlj social educational classes at the present time. Is it not possible also to reach the grown-up foreigner in rural Canada? The mothers are being reached in many western communities through instructors who go out at the direction of the Health Departments of the provinces. Mothers' clubs and similar groups have been organized with splendid results. But this does not of necessity make for Cana-[Mr. Wliidden.l
dian citizenship. It appeals to the mother, let us say; the teaching she gets makes it possible for her to conduct in a more modern way the little new home, so that there will be fewer deaths of young children in that home. But is there not possible this larger recognition of the opportunity-yes, of the necessity-that lies right at our hand at the present time of telling these people in such a way that they cannot mistake what it means to live in our country. I am interested in the double column printing of many articles in the non-English periodicals of Western Canada. I believe that for certain articles there should be in parallel columns an English translation, but I submit that merely legislating into the foreigner's press a translation is not sufficient to Canadianize him. I look upon their papers as a necessary evil for the time being. I think they should have them if they are conducted along right lines. I am of the opinion that some of them are not conducted along right lines because in some of them I have had the honour to be accused of being very much opposed to all foreigners in western Canada. But why could we not have the non-English press -the foreign press, if you will-of Canada publishing weekly or monthly articles in the language of the majority of the readers of these papers, conveying to the minds of these poor Canadians in some cases,- non-Canadians and new Canadians in a great many others-what is in the mind and in the heart of a sympathetic Canadian-born citizen who appreciates the foreigner in the land. Syndicate these articles if you will, in the less formal sense; let these people know, week after week and month after month, something of our past history; make it possible for these adults to read this in their own homes. They are not going to school. In the rural districts they will not go to the night schools, where there are night schools, for many weeks in the year at any rate. There are scores of different ways whereby we might touch for their betterment the lives of the foreigners who would be Canadians if we would give them all the opportunities that are possible.
I do not wish to convey the idea that I am among those who believe that all the foreign-born in Canada have the right spirit. Nor yet should any of us be so foolish as to think that all the foreign-born are not going to be good Canadians. There were some of the neutral aliens and some of the friendly aliens who were very far

from being with us. during the period of the war. We simply have to take them as we find them. Those who are the most impressionable we will teach in one way; those who are the least impressionable we will try to get at in another way; and those who are not impressionable at all should not be allowed to continue in Canada.
May I, before resuming my seat, illustrate what I mean by referring to a question asked, by a Ukrainian. Many of us think that Ukrainians and Ruthenians are pretty much the same. The young man to whom I refer insists that he is not willing to join a Ruthenian club but has become a charter member of a Ukrainian club. He understands the difference if we do not. This is the question that he put to me: " What do you Canadians think of us people anyway? " My answer was: " John, it depends very much on the Canadian who is doing the thinking and on the foreigner that he is thinking about." That has always been so and I suppose it will be so more or less to the end of the chapter. But I found in that man's mind, and in his heart too, questionings and desires that proved conclusively to me that he for one was anxious to know how to be a good Canadian. The first man to leave his work on the morning of armistice day, after he had secured permission, in order to get into the hall where there was to be a celebration, was this same Ukrainian.
But in Canadianizing him or any of his class are we to think tha't we cdn for one moment make Anglo-Canadians of them? Their viewpoint, their temperament, their disposition, their fibre, are different from ours. I do not want to see them hyphenated Canadians. I am not so much afraid of the word " Ukrainian-Canadian," as I am of the hyphen in the thing. It is the hyphen that is the menace, Mr. Speaker, and we must have none of it. But taking it for granted always that there will be a difference in the outlook and in the conception in regard to many things, is it not in the letter and in the spirit of this resolution, is it not in the heart and in the minds of the majority of the members of this House of Parliament, to make it more easily possible in future than it has been in the past to speed up the process whereby we can Kelp the best of these foreigners in our country to become intelligent and thoroughgoing Canadians? For the old people, they will always see some things differently from the Canadian-born. For the children who are in the schools now, and for the children who are yet to be
born, I think we can reasonably hope that they will become, if educated, if socialized, if assimilated in ways that are fair-that are strict, or exacting, if you please, but nevertheless fair, and consistent-a part of the very best sections of the body politic.
I believe in the resolution of the hon. member for South Perth.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this resolution has come on in the absence of my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) whose duty it would have been, had he been present, to speak to the resolution from the standpoint of the Goyern-ment. It concerns a subject the administration of which until 1917 was under the Department of the Interior but has since passed under a separate organization and a separate minister.
The character of the immigration that has come to Canada in the last years is pretty well reflected in the census figures of 1911, but as to Western Canada is more closely reflected in the census of 1916. It is a matter of major consequence to this country that in these western provinces there lives to-day a population forty per cent ol which, speaking roughly,-much larger in Saskatchewan and smaller in Alberta and British Columbia-is non-Anglo-Saxon-born and very little relatively French-Canadian. To say that that percentage is not Anglo-Saxon-born is not to express the whole truth. A great proportion of the balance is of those born in the United States of_ America. These two classes of immigration have been so great that we find two of our western provinces to-day populated to the extent of virtually seventy per cent, and more in one case, by non-British born.
This is a consequence of the rapid development of the provinces; it could scarcely have been otherwise. Had those provinces waited for their growth until the overflow from the more populated regions of the East should have achieved that result, the growth would have been exceedingly slow, the development exceedingly tedious. On the whole a fairly useful class of citizens has come into that land. The emigration from countries who were the enemies of the British Empire was large and constituted, I should say, over half, much over half, of the non-Anglo-Saxon population. I have no comment to make on those references in the debate to the conduct of that portion of the population during the progress of the war.



we have not been as careful as we should have been to see that they lived in as healthful physical surroundings as were essential to their proper development.. But we have done something to educate them, and* some of our schools in Montreal are almost entirely attended by the boys and girls of these newcomers. And, Mr. Speaker, it makes one's belief in the innate goodness of humanity-in spite of the remarks made by the Minister of the Interior vVho has just taken his seat-to see how these people quickly respond to education. An old college friend of mine, a principal of one of our city schools, assured me that in these families one saw' a remarkable difference .from the eldest child to the youngest who had attended school, and that in the course of one short half a generation the improvement was most strongly marked.
Out in the West I cannot speak with any degree of authority, but I remember ah address delivered to this House last yeai by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews), if I mistake not, in which he said that in many places the folks out there had more or less shown the seamy side of the West rather than the best t the newcomer. The story which I once heard rather illustrates this point. A man was asked whether he was a Doukhobor, and he said, "Oh, no, me smoke, me drink, me swear-me aCanadian." I am lafiraid that very often it has been the seamy side of our life which we have shown to the newcomer.
Now, -Mr. Speaker, what do we need to do in order to make these people good Canadians? First of all, we have to give them an example of Canadianism; we have to be Canadians ourselves. We have to do less talking about the Empire and more talking about Canada. The member for Brandon (Mr. Whidden) made a very just and true observation when he said that if we attempted to make Anglo-Canadians out of these people we attempted an impossible task. The ideal we have to hold up before these people is the ideal of Canadianism. We should have our own flag in order that the children in the school-houses all over the country might learn to honour and salute the flag that belonged to us-jjust as Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa have their own flags. It is not that we love the Union Jack less, but because we love the Canadian ensign more.
And the next thing we should show them is a Canadianism which is a kindly Canadianism. We want to get away from the spirit of bitterness and into that spirit which was so well exemplified by the Act-

ing Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) the other day in this House when he pleaded that we get together. We want to get away from that spirit exemplified so amply in the House to-night by the Minister of the Interior (Hoii. Mr. Meighen), one of whose purposes in intervening in a non-contentious debate is that of insulting the Opposition. We want to choose the better and leave the worst part. They are there, both before you; you will choose.
Next, if we want to have a good Canadian sentiment; if we want people to love our country, we must make our country lovely. That is something which Parliament cannot do, though it may help; something . which provincial- legislatures cannot do, though they may help. But it is something which individuals can do. After all, it is easy enough to talk high sentiment, but it is much harder to live in accordance with high ideals. We have to see to it that we who belong to the larger families of the Canadian people, we English-speaking folk and French-speaking folk, have the proper attitude toward each other as well as to these men and women who from other countries have come here to seek a larger freedom and better living conditions. We have to see to it that these people find Canada a kindly place to live in. We have to see to it that we regard them as our fellow-citizens, just as dear to us as our own folk, and to whom we shall extend the same even-handed justice . as we extend to our own folk. We have to see to it that our national thought runs along channels which will appeal to the newcomer and which will be as deep and as wide as humanity itself. We have to develop a broad and a generous spirit in Canada; and I believe we can do it.
I find myself in entire agreement with , the Minister of the Interior, when he suggests that it is unwise for the federal Government to collect from the Canadian people sums of money and then hand them over to the provinces to be expended. I would, as far as possible, put upon the provinces who have the responsibility for spending the money the onus of raising it. That, I believe, is sound economics, sound constitutional practice, something we should cleave to as far as possible. A great deal can be done by public bodies and by private agencies to bring together men and women of different races and different beliefs.
If a mistake has been made in the great West, it has been perhaps, in allowing groups of these people to settle together. Of course, there are two sides to the question. These people come to this country,

to them a foreign hind; they heard only a tongue which was foreign to their own, and it was natural that they should want to ' group together. Why, it is said that if two Scotchmen were left on a desert island they [DOT] very soon would form a Caledonian society. That spirit of clannishness is a natural spirit; it has its good side, though i( has also its dangerous side.
Work has been done among the new Canadians by many people in Canada. I hold in my hand a work by Mr. Alfred Fitzpatrick who has made up a book which is a partly historical, partly geographical, partly a pictorial way of teaching the English language. This shows that men are at work on this important matter.
After all, there is little that is controversial in this discussion. Appropriate measures should be taken,-I would rather say by " Government " than by " this Government," because, after all, this Government is only indirectly and in a very slight degree involved in the question of education, and it is of doubtful wisdom for us who have a very large field for our endeavours to trespass on the field occupied by the provinces. So, if it could be understood that this resolution is to be regarded as meaning " Government " rather than the federal Government, I believe I could give it my hearty support and approval.


Mr. R. C. HENDERS (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution presented this afternoon opens up for consideration one of the most important questions, I think, that will come before Parliament this session. Not having been here during the afternoon I do not know what ground has been covered by preceding speakers, but at the risk of repeating some of the statements made during the afternoon I desire to express in a few words the view that I hold in regard to this importaant matter.
If anything of value is to grow out of this discussion we shall have to get down to particulars and apply the principles laid down in the resolution in some way that will bring practical results. The government of our country naturally divides itself into three different departments, municipal, provincial and federal
In the discussion of this question it would he well for us to keep in mind that each department of government makes its contribution to the building up of citizenship in those who are to live in this country. And as we bring people into this country expecting to make citizens of them, each of those departments of government must make a contribution towards the education of those prospective citizens. Hitherto, we 53}	,
have been, in a large measure at least, vague and indefinite in our method bring' ing in of the foreigner and in the invitation we extend to immigrants to come to our shores. We have sent out immigration officials to different countries of the world, and particularly to the old World, and our ambition has been to induce men and women to come to Canada. Our success has been measured by the numbers we have succeeded in bringing into this country, and we have put a financial value, per

haps, on the number in proportion to the largeness of that number; but we have not selected as carefully as we ought, and after they have been brought to our shores and have taken their place among us as citizens of this country, we have done worse than that; we seem to have treated them much as Topsy was" treated by her friends; we-have just left them to grow up. We have-paid very little attention to them after we have brought them here except perhaps at election time when, if we thought we could make a good Tory or a good Grit vote, we might interest ourselves sufficiently' to secure their naturalization and their' registration. But we have not approached the question with the idea, of placing before those foreigners as they come to our country, the responsibility of citizenship and the honour that should attach to the privilege of being a citizen of Canada. I was thinking about that the. other day and this incident came to my mind. There was a time in the history of the Christian church when conflict arose between the followers of Christ and some of the church officers with regard to the views they held on certain questions, and one of them was arraigned before a court for trial, lit was learned that he was a Roman by birth and when he appeared before the court, the officer -of the court said to him; "Art thou a Roman?" He replied in the affirmative: " With great price have I obtained this citizenship " said the officer. He felt that it was an honour to be a Roman citizen and he was prepared to pay a price for it; he was proud of his citizenship. We have failed on this point, in that we do not place before these people as we ought to the responsibility and the honour of citizenship in this country, and the privileges that go with that citizenship.
Canada is a confederacy and we have Dominion Day as the great day on which we celebrate Confederation. It seems to me that Confederation Day ought to afford us a great opportunity in connection with the development of citizenship, not only in the

children that are growing up, but in the foreigners that are coming to our land. If we would properly use that day, we could make it a day that would be educational in its value and influence along this line. I had in mind an arrangement something like this. It "is thought that perhaps we .should extend the terms of residence in this country before we would grant full citizenship to the foreigner who comes to our shores. We could use this terms of years in an educational way to great advantage to those foreigners. Upon reaching our shores, the immigrant makes a certain declaration and assumes certain responsibilities-declares his intentions. (Supposing we start in on the first Dominion Day after the immigrant reaches our shores by saying to him:	On Dominion Day, we shall expect you to appear with the multitude of the people who are gathered for celebration on that day, and one hour of the day of celebration programme shall be devoted to education on citizenship. Somebody should he present to speak on the flag and what it stands for; somebody else should be there to speak on the institution and laws of our land. Then I would say that an opportunity should be given to the candidate, after having heard those explanations, to declare himself publicly whether he desired to proceed further and at a later date, enter into citizenship in our country. A splendid opportunity would be given to lay all the advantages of Canadian citizenship before the immigrant and also to place before him the honour of becoming a Canadian citizen. I would follow that course until the first three years had passed, and then I would say to him: Now you have proven yourself worthy and we believe that the time has come when we can entrust you with part of the responsibility of citizenship. Government might be divided into three departments, viz: municipal, provincial and federal. You as a candidate having signified your desire of becoming a citizen; having lived amongst us so long, and during that time having proven yourself woithy. Therefore, we give you the first step towards citizenship in this country, and by this ceremony we publicly give you the right to vote in municipal affairs. In connection with this ceremony-I would explain all about our municipal institutions and laws, the privileges and the responsibilities connected with municipal life. After the expiration of the second term of years he would again appear before the properly constituted board and publicly be instructed with regard to the duties and [Mr. Henders.J
responsibilities of provincial citizenship. Having satisfied the board that he understood what was involved in such an examination and having publicly declared that he desired to proceed further, I would confer on him the right and responsibility'of a provincial voter. Then at the end of the term he would come up for full citizenship.
At that time I would have the 9 p.m. meaning of federal institutions, federal laws and federal responsibilities explained to him, and he would then publicly declare himself as to his desire to enter into full citizenship. If we adopted this course, we would not have so many mistakes made by these people afterwards, nor so many misunderstandings in regard to what it means to be a citizen' of our country. We w-ould have a citizenship that would be intelligent, that could not be played with, and that would be able to understand public questions as they came up from time to time. I am glad that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) called attention to the fact that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) is not here and I hope that, when definite action is taken he will be present to give us the benefit of his thinking along these lines. I believe the problem of what we are to do with the non-English and non-French speaking aliens who are coming to this country to assume citizenship will be solved by our taking them into bur confidence and explaining to them our institutions and our laws. Let us talk these matters over with them and mix more freely with them. Let us play with them more, let us sing with them more, and then we shall bring them to feel they are one with us, and I do not think we shall have any trouble in making them good citizens.


Mr. S. F. GLASS (East Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, the object of the resolution before us, to create and develop a better citizenship amongst the foreign-born in this country, is certainly to be commended, but that the responsibility should in a large measure devolve upon the federal Government, as is intimated in the resolution, is a conclusion with which I am unable to agree. The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) in introducing the resolution this afternoon drew attention to the fact that from 1906 to 1915 some two and a half million immigrants came to this country. Going into the figures a little more closely, I might point out that from 1910 to 1914, 1,662,025 immigrants came to this country, and of that number 1,270,000 and more came

from the British Isles and the United States.
Just here I wish to express my pleasure at the remarks made by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders). He is really the first member of the House speaking to this resolution who has given us any constructive programme by which the object of the resolution might be attained. I also wish to say that notwithstanding the criticism that has been levelled at the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) I know from experience that what he suggested this afternoon, that we should assimilate these people by getting them into community circles and clubs and making them feel they are at one with the citizens of the surrounding district, would go a long way towards establishing proper assimilation and promoting a good understanding and feeling amongst these people. It has been a gross error in the past that so little care has been taken in the proper examination of these people before they were admitted into this country. I do not mean a perfunctory examination at the border, possibly sometimes by an inexperienced or inefficient member of the Immigration or Health Department, but their whole record in their own country should have been closely inquired into before ever they were allowed to set foot on a steamer sailing for these shores. If we had taken that precaution in years gone by, instead of herding them here like so many cattle, we should not have had so much misery and suffering, nor so much of that element that has been a disturbing influence to our social and moral fabric. I can speak to some extent from experience on this question because in the country of Middlesex, and it was also done by our friends in the county of Lambton, in the year 1912 we organized a publicity association to bring immigrants to that district. We published a pamphlet of forty-eight pages, very nicely illustrated, describing farm and city life in that community, and we endeavoured to have only *honest statements made to these immigrants so that when they arrived they would find nothing misrepresented. We also sent over an immigration agent from the county whose duty it was to go into the rural communities in these different countries and personally select for farm life in this country men who had been trained to agriculture, men of character, good morals and of sound health. Farmers in the community from which I come were ready to advance the money to bring these men out, and when they did arrive we went one step further. After we were satisfied that these
men would fulfill the duties of citizenship in this country, we raised a fund and advanced money to them to enable them to bring their families out so that they could settle here and be happy and contented.
I do not at all doubt that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) intends to make ample provision for a proper examination of every immigrant who is allowed to sail for this country, and that the intending immigrant's record will be known before he leaves his native country for his destination in Canada. This work devolves, I understand, not only on the Department of Immigration and Colonization, but to some extent also on the Department of Health, of which my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) has supervision. I saw not long ago in the Civil Service sheet that is sent out, advertisements calling for efficient and capable men to go to the border and to seaports to examine immigrants coming in; and here the old trouble comes up again. How are we going to get capable men for this work if we do not pay them the salary to which they are entitled? Colonel Amyot, the head of the Health Department, is a most capable and efficient man, and if he has at his disposal a sufficient sum to meet the requirements of proper supervision in this matter, I have no doubt that as regards the physical health of the immigrants we shall get a class of citizens whom we shall be glad to welcome. It is an old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and I do not know of any matter requiring our immediate consideration to which that saying is more applicable than the subject now under consideration. If we take proper precautions to guard against admitting undesirables into this country we shall get the kind of people we can welcome. I happened to pick up since dinner a pamphlet published in April by the Commission of Conservation ih which reference is made to the character of some of the immigrants who come to this country not long ago. It says:
Dr. C. IC Clarice, medical director, Canadian National Committee for Mental Hygiene, points out in the Toronto Globe of January 27, 1919, that out of nineteen girls introduced into Canada by one society, eighteen were mothers of illegitimate children-that was the case in one community. Out of four hundred admissions to fail in one western province, only 23 per cent were of Canadian birth. The Austrians contributed 33 per cent, although their normal proportion should have been 8 per cent. Of 266 cases of unmarried mothers, which passed through one Ontario hospital. 191 were feebleminded, 4 were insane, 42 were border-line cases, and only 26 were classified as normal.

In Manitoba and Ontario the proportion of unmarried mothers was but slightly over 25 per cent Canadian.
It is not necessary to refer to statistics; there can be multiplied a hundredfold and on every hand evidences that the type of immigrant we admitted to our shores in the past has been an injury to the moral and physical health of our people. I would just urge again that the Department of Health which exercises supervision over the admission of immigrants will see that only men of probity, efficiency and ability are entrusted with checking the inflow of immigration as it reaches our shores.


Michael Steele: Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer just a word in closing this debate and to express my very great satisfaction at the interest that the subject has aroused in this House to-day. A few things have been said which I would like briefly to reply to. Emphasis has been laid on the question of this being a matter of education and, that being so, the federal Government should not interfere. It seems to me that it is not absolutely a question of education. 'The federal. Parliament decides what immigrants shall come into this country and it decides who shall be kept out of this country; we define what, each applicant for naturalization must comply with before he can become naturalized; and surely it will be inconsistent to take the ground that, when the federal Government has done all this, and with a perfect right, it should in no way whatever- take action in regard to training the newcomers to be intelligent citizens upon naturalization.
If we take the narrow view of education as we commonly speak of it, perhaps there [DOT]would be some strength in the argument; jbut if we take the wider view, that the diffusion of any and all knowledge is a process of education, where do we land ourselves? What could we do in our Agricultural Department in the way of sending out information to our farmers? Surely, that is educative. The federal Government does that. If we argue that this Canaddanizing of immigrants being a question of education we should not interfere, the reply must be that neither should we interfere with educating the farmer in proper methods ot farming. I. do not admit that at all. I believe that the federal Government is [DOT]doing a good work in the education of the farmers, and I believe it ought to be doing a good work in the education of foreigners for citizenship, not for the purpose of
[Mt. Glass/)
simply g-iving them an "education" as we [DOT] usually speak of it.
I do not know that I could entirely agree with the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Me-Master), when he expressed the opinion that a mistake had been made in the West in allowing the foreigners to group together. If we are going to continue to show the indifference towards foreigners that we have done in the past, I would be inclined to agree with him; but if we as a federal Government are going to take the interest in the foreigner that I think we ought to take, probably it would assist our efforts to Can-adianize him if those of a class are allowed to settle in groups. If that effort is made to Canadianize him it can be more effectively made when these foreigners are settled together and we can reach them through their own leaders, schools, churches and social organizations.
I do not think there would be any objection by the provinces to the federal Government taking part in this work. In fact, I noticed that when the National Conference on Character Education was held in Winnipeg last summer, most of the Western Provinces, if not all of them, and some of the Eastern Provinces were represented. That conference passed a very strong resolution calling upon the federal Government to assist with this work. I am not aware that any province made any objection to the passing of the resolution. I should think that the provinces would welcome the aid of the Government.. We know that in Saskatchewan last year 750 teachers were called for more than could be obtained. Do you pretend to say that the provinces would not be glad of the assistance of the federal authorities in providing teachers to assist foreign groups and communities in securing not only education through the public schools, but also education in oitizen-ship, civics and all other matters which are necessary in order to make them good Canadian citizens?
Some criticism was also offered that no constructive programme had been suggested except by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Headers). I do not think that this is the stage for suggesting definite programmes. What we are concerned more about here to-day is to get this federal Parliament interested in the great question of Canadianizing the foreigner. When the interest of Parliament is secured there will be some way of deciding what method shall be adopted in order to give effect to the

expressed will of Parliament; definite methods will come later.
I was struck with one or two of the remarks made by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg). He was glad to see, he said, the interest being taken in this matter by members opposite, referring, I presume, to the members on this side of the House. At that time the hon. member for Brome and no other member-on that side of the House had spoken; so I presume that the member for Maple Creek could feel like Pollyanna; he was glad also because of the interest that was being taken in the subject by members on the opposite side of the House, and he had two reasons for his gladness. But, in his succeeding remarks he expressed regret that this resolution had not been introduced three or four years ago.


John Archibald Maharg: Three or four Parliaments ago.


Michael Steele: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon?	[DOT]


John Archibald Maharg: I had no reference to this House; I said it should have been introduced three or four Parliaments before.


Michael Steele: I stand corrected; I quite agree that it might have been better if it had been introduced at any time in the past. The hon. gentleman referred also to the point that we should not treat foreigners with suspicion. Now my impression of the foreigner is that suspicion is not one of the qualities of his mind, and that any suspicion which develops there is the product of the see^ which is sown, generally by Canadian citizens who do it largely with a selfish purpose. If the foreigner becomes suspicious it is not because he is naturally inclined that way; it is because he is led to become so from the seed that is planted in his mind.


John Archibald Maharg: I would like to be sure that the hon. gentleman does not misunderstand me. When I mentioned suspicion I had no thought whatever of suspicion in the mind of the foreigner. I said it was we who were treating him with suspicion. The reference I made was to our own attitude and not that of the foreigner.


Michael Steele: In that case I would still disagree with the hon. gentleman in his belief that we are treating the foreigner with suspicion. I would like the members of this House to be given credit for being sincere when they discuss questions relating to the foreigner. I do not think it is at all necessary that the members of this
Parliament should be accused, every time that questions relating to the foreigner come up, of having ulterior motives in the discussion. Many of the questions relating to our foreign population are great national questions and fraught with the greatest im-.portance to the future of this country. While members on one side may differ from those on the other, and even members on each side may differ among themselves, as to what is the proper policy to pursue towards the foreigner, I should think we might each give credit to the other for being at least sincere in the ideas we entertain and the policies we advocate. I therefore trust that the word "suspicion" will be omitted when we are discussing' what our treatment of the foreigner should be. I know very well how easy it is to create suspicion in his mind. Very often all that is necessary is to tell him that the Parliament of Canada, or some one else, is looking upon him with suspicion. That is sufficient to develop in his mind suspicion of this body or that person. I am very glad indeed that this resolution has been accorded such a favourable reception, and that its presentation has led to such a wide and interesting discussion.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, fish being a highly nutritious and palatable article of food, greater production is most desirable, and an the fisheries of *Canada are capable of much greater development, which can be best carried ou; by an aggressive policy on the part of the Fisheries Department of the Federal Government, in co-operation with the fishermen and others interested in this great industry, it is desirable that the Government take. immediate steps to formulate and put into effect a vigorous policy so that the fisheries of Canada may be prosecuted to the utmost possible extent.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is one which contains truths which are of vital importance to all Canada at the present time, fin view of the fact that the nations of the world are desperately in need of food products I feel that it is incumbent upon me at this time to endeavour to place before this House reasons why the Government should in every way possible develop one of the major and great industries of the country.
The fisheries, Mr. Speaker, is not a new industry. It is as old as the world itself.

If you will turn to the book of Genesis, you will find it says there in the 19th and 21st verses of the first chapter that "it was the evening and morning of the fourth day and God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind. And God blessed them saying 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters of the sea.' " Again in the same book, when the flood was to be sent upon the earth, and Noah was warned thereof, and when he was told to take into the ark every clean beast by sevens and every unclean beast by two, including the animals of the earth and the fowls of the air, no mention was made of the fishes of the sea, I presume for the reason that the waters which were to cover the earth could not affect the fishes of the deep. But we also find that when the waters had subsided and the ark had rested on Mount Ararat, the same book says that God blessed Noah and his sons and said unto them "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth." And he further said "And the fear of you and the dr.ead of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth on the earth and upon all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they delivered." So we see that in the olden times the fishes of the sea were put there for man's use.
Coming further down the ages, we .find in the New Testament that the Sea of Gallillee was a very prolific fishing ground and that when the Saviour of the earth desired disciples to do his bidding he went to the fishermen of the Sea of Gallillee and commanded them to follow him and he would make them fishers of men. We all remember that beautiful chapter in the gospel of St. John where Peter said unto his brother disciples "I go a fishing." They also said unto him, "We go with thee." We remember the story goes on to say that they entered into a ship and that night they caught nothing, but when the morning came the Master stood on the shore and said "Children, have ye any meat?" They answered him "No," and He said unto them "Cast the net on the right side of the ship and ye shall find." They cast therefore and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes."	*
The same is true to-day as it was then, that despite the quantities of fish taken from the sea and the sums of treasure derived therefrom, that if we cast our net on the right side of the ship we will bring it back filled with a multitude of fishes.

Coming to more modern times let me say, Mr. Speaker, that our fisheries have the distinction of being the only Canadian asset which was tendered even a passing notice by ancient historians, one of whom avers that five hundred years before Columbus started on his eventful voyage of discovery, Norwegian and Icelandic fishing fleets operated in the bays of Newfoundland and along the coast of Labrador, whilst by the recorded correspondence of diplomats and treaties drawn by French, American and British statesmen, it is made positively clear that as early as 1450 Portuguese and French fishermen pursued the codfish on the Grand Banks. John Cabot justifies this contention when in 1497 he reported to his Government that on arriving at Newfoundland he found foreign . fishermen operating in the waters surrounding that island.
As early as 1632, when Nova Scotia was under French rule, two cargoes of fish were shipped from Lunenburg county to Portugal, and whilst describing the fisheries of Acadia as they were in 1699, Villebun, the French historian wrote as follows:

"If rightly managed this Province is a Peru." If more be necessary to show the antiquity of this invaluable asset of Canada that more is set out in detail in an international record covering the negotiations between Great Britain and the United States, when they entered into their first fisheries treaty. It is a well known fact that for years the British Government spent large sums of money to retain the Atlantic fisheries and that for many years American and French had no rights there.
Coming, to the present age it is my desire to give facts and figures to show not only the value of the Canadian fisheries, but to give figures of the value of the fisheries of other countries so as to make comparison and to show what they are doing. I also intend to place on record some information which I have gathered fronl time to time as to what the other countries of the world are doing to encourage and help this great industry. My only regret is that I cannot devote sufficient time to properly give to you, Sir, and the.House, all the information which I have accumulated in many years of experience of this business. I have therefor to apologize not only to the House, but to the fishermen of Canada and the others with whom I have been closely connected during my whole lifetime.
I desire first to place on record some figures with regard to the fisheries of Canada and the various other countries of the world which place fishing in the forefront of their

industries. In giving those figures it will be noticed that most of them are for years previous to the war. My reason for doing this is that Great Britain and the countries adjacent to the North Sea were greatly handicapped in their fishery operations from 1914 to 1919, due as we all know to the [DOT] fact that these countries were engaged in the great struggle which convulsed Europe and the world.
The value of the fisheries of the whole Dominion of Canada for the three years, 1910, 1913 and 1917 is as follows: In 1910 the total value was $29,965,433; in 1913 it had increased to $33,207,748, and in 1917 the value had jumped to $52,312,044. The increase in value for the year 1917-and that also holds good for the three years previous for which I have not given figures,-was not due to the increased quantity of fish caught, but was entirely due to enhanced prices which were obtained during these years. Owing to the fact that other countries were not producing as much fish as usual, and owing to the further fact that all other commodities increased in value, prices of the different classes of fish also advanced in some cases 50 per cent,, in some 75 per cent and in others 100 per cent. If time permitted I would like to give detailed figures of the fisheries of the different provinces, but this would take too long and is not really necessary for my present purpose. However, I would like to give to the House a synopsis, first of the value of fisheries in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec for certain years, and also the value of fisheries of Ontario, Western Canada and British Columbia.
For the eastern provinces the value of the fisheries in 1900 was $14,283,679; in 1910, $17,099,570; in 1913, $15,737,207 and in 1917, .$25,812,094. For Ontario and the western provinces, including British Columbia, the value in 1900 was $6,353,560; in 1910, $12,747,498; in 1913, $17,402,276 and in 1917, $26,432,549. The value for Eastern Canada as given for 1910 is probably over a million dollars too high, as it is well known . that the accuracy of the annual departmental report for that year of the dry cod returned was greatly doubted.
It should be remembered, Sir, in comparing the value of the Canadian fisheries with that of other countries that the Canadian value is given as the value of the product prepared for market, with all the expense of curing and packing added toil, In European countries and in the Atlantic coast districts of the United States the value quoted is the value of the fish as landed by the fishermen. Reckoned on the same basis as in Europe, therefore, the-value of our fish in 1917 for example would not be more than $34,500,000, and of course the value in other seasons would be relatively less than the value shown. The increased value, as I said before, during the war years is due to higher prices caused by the shortage of European supplies and is not due to development.
In comparison I would like to place on Hansard the following statistics and information with regard to the quantity and value of fish landed in the chief fishing countries of Europe, which will give an idea of the increase from 1907 to 1913, the year before the war.
1907.
1913.
Cwts.	Value.	Cwts.	Value.Norway., 	$12,152,250	14,630,50-0	$15,5S5,750Sweden	3,102,250	1,456,640	4,521,750Denmark	3, S 9 0,0 00	1,288,600	4,980,500Germany	7,236,25-0	3,627,980	11,589,250Holland	
2,561,480'	7,577,250	2,941,140	11,216,500Belgium	1,375,000	262,460	1,196,500France	
3, SIS, 02-0	20,541,500	3,863,0-0-0	26,529,750Great Britain.. ..	21.15O.5S0	58,692,250	25,0S0,080	73,464,750The above figures	are very illuminating	fish were sent to	New York	and Cuba in
and show to what extent these countries were endeavouring to develop an industry *which meant so much for the health and prosperity of the. people. Let me say here, in case I might miss it later, that one of the greatest competitors which the fish merchants or the fisheries of Canada have in their dry cod is Norway and Sweden,- or I might more truly say they had this competition previous to the war, as in the years previous to the great war Norwegian
great quantities and came into competition with Canadian Atlantic cod, which had to find a market in these places. Let me also say that this competition was very serious in view of the fact that the Norwegian people paid more attention to the curing and drying.of their fish than our Canadian fishermen did. I am pleased to say, however, that soon after the war started, when it. was practically impossible for the Scandinavians to send their fish across the

Atlantic, our merchants on the Atlantic coast, principally at Yarmouth, Lunenburg and Halifax, erected artificial dryers, and in these dryers they are able to hard-cure their fish for the Cuban and New York markets, with the result that Canadian Atlantic cod is practically to-day supplying the whole demand of those great markets to the south.
It will be noticed from what I have just given you, Mr. Speaker, that Great Britain's fisheries did not increase to the same extent proportionately as those of Norway. The reason for that is the very high state of development which has been already reached by the British fisheries, whilst those of continental Europe were in a backward state and their people had only awakened to the great asset which they had in the seas adjacent to their coast line. It is interesting to note here that most of the fish caught by the countries mentioned a few minutes ago were caught in that little strip of water called the North sea, and despite the fact that day after day and year after year the fisheries are prosecuted in this small body of water with the utmost vigour, yet the sea is still teeming with food for the nations. I might also say, Sir, that during the last two years, since the British people have built larger vessels, they go further afield, and to-day during some seasons of the year they are fishing as far north as Iceland and Greenland.
More than sixty per cent of the fish taken from the North sea consist of herring, fourteen per cent of haddock, and about eight per cent codfish. Of the herring taken from the North sea, more than fifty per cent are landed by British fishing vessels known as drifters-and let me say here that there is no good reason why our herring industry in Canada cannot be developed in the same way. At the present time our fishing for herring is done mostly by nets, anchored in the sea. It would be a good policy for the Government to give to the fishermen of the Atlantic coast the trawlers and drifters which were in service during the war and [DOT] which are now anchored and out of commission, so that they could further develop the herring fisheries by this method, a new method to Canada, but a method which has brought such great results to the fishing industry of Great Britain and other continental nations.
As an example of the growth of this industry in Great Britain, let us take the landings of herring at one port, that of Yarmouth, England. In 1890 there were landed at this port 575,640 cwts., and in 1913, 3,122,280 cwts. The neighbouring port
[Mr. Duff.l
of Lowestoft, where the landings were almost as great, shows a similar advance. Steam herring drifters were first introduced in 1900 and motor drifters in considerable numbers in 1910. The number of steam and motor drifters operated in 1913 from certain countries bordering on the North sea was as follows: Norway, 202; Germany, 65; Holland, 67; and Great Britain, 1,774. The greater proportion of such fish as cod, haddock, etc., landed in countries surrounding the North sea, excepting cod in Norway, is caught by steam trawlers, commonly called beam or otter trawlers. Steam trawlers were first used in the early eighties of the last century, and the number in operation in the Nox-th Sea countries in 1913 was as follows: Norway, 3; Denmark and Iceland, 24; Sweden, 58; Germany, 256; Holland, 158, and Great Britain, 1,677. These steam crafts use a large net which is dropped over the stern by the fishermen, and sinks to the bottom of the sea. The vessel keeps steaming ahead until such time as tlie skipper thinks or feels by the ropes attached to the net that he has a catch, when the steamer is stopped, the net hauled on board, and the fishes taken from it.
As an example of this branch of the fishing industry in Great Britain, let us look for a moment at what is being done at Grimsby, England. In 1890 the fish traffic amounted to 1,427,640 cwts, in 1910 to 2,576,820 cwts., and in 1913, 3,595,840 cwts. To appreciate Grimsby's huge fishing industry it has to be borne in mind that its fleet of steam trawlers in 1913 numbered 650, the value of which alone amounted to over $26,000,000. I might say here that within the last month I received from a young fishing captain from my own county, who is at present in Grimsby, England, learning the business of steam trawling, a number of photographs showing the city of Grimsby and the fishing fleet tied up at the docks. The photographs certainly picture a remarkable scene, as at the time the views were taken the fishermen were asking for better terms and consequently the great fleet was not in commission. I am glad to say that the fishermen and the fish merchants amicably settled their differences and that the Grimsby fleet is again plowing the North Sea. The landings of this fleet are xnostly ' consumed fresh throughout England, the number being so great that ten special fish trains are dispatched from Grimsby daily all the year round.	*
As is well known, Mr. Speaker, cod constitutes our main fishery in Eastern Can-


192C
[Stage Direction]
ada, whereas the proportion of cod taken from the North Sea amounts to only 8 per cent of all fish taken therefrom. It is interesting, therefore, to compare the landings of cod in Canada with those of certain North Sea countries. The following are the quantities landed in European countries in 1903 and 1913:	.
1908	1913
Norway. 4,534,060	cwts.	7,184,980	cwts.Germany	.	.	.	.	333,400	"	626,760	"Great Britain	..	2,810,460	"	3,962,660	"France. 2,116,252	*,	1,924,570	"
It is important for Canadians to note that of the total quantity of cod landed in France in 1908, no less than 1,644,996 Cwts. or quintals were taken from the Banks near the Newfoundland and Canadian coasts. At least as large a proportion of the 1913 catch was taken from the sea on the western side of the Atlantic. France, as is well known to us all, Mr. Speaker, owns the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which are adjacent to the south coast of Newfoundland and close to the fishing grounds, and each year French fishermen in great numbers are sent out in large fishing schooners to prosecute the fisheries there *during the summer months.
The quantities of codfish landed in all Eastern Canada and in the years 1908, 1911, 1913 and 1917 is as follows: 1908, 2,149,611 cwts.; 1911, 2,072,195 cwts.; 1913, 1,635,379 cwts; 1917, 2,215,455 cwts. Compare the figures of 1908 with 1917, and you will see that there was practically no increase in the catch.
Now, for a few moments I will take you to the adjoining Dominion of Newfoundland, where the fisheries are the principal industry and where, perhaps, fishing is done more intensively, considering the population, than in any other part of the world 1 might, perhaps, be a little personal here, Mr. Speaker, and say that this is the country where I learned the difference between the different kinds of fish and where I received, my early training in the fish business.
As an illuminating example, the increase m the valuation in Newfoundland's staple fishery exports for the period ending June, .1918 and June, 1919, is worth noting. In 7 913 there was shipped from that country 1,821,306 dry quintals of cod valued at $18,829,560, and in 1919, 1,894,023, valued at $25,860,112. In 1918 there were shipped. 216-.048 barrels of herring, valued at $2 -067,697 and in 1919, 211,555 barrels valued at $2,429,403. In 1SJ08 there were shipped 4,327 tierces of salmon valued at $91,805
and in 1919, 4,111 tierces valued at $112,412. The Newfoundland fishermen do not confine their activities to the waters adjacent to the coast of Newfoundland. A migration of many fishermen and their families to the rock-bound coast of Labrador starts in the early days of June. There they fish until the month of October, when they again return to their homes in Newfoundland. I had the privilege of watching the fishermen on the coast of Labrador during two summers, catch and dry their product for market, and it was an experience which was of great value and which gave me an insight into the life and work of these people.
Another great fishing industry in the Dominion of Newfoundland is the seal fishing. The seal fishery has shown a decided drop for the last few years. The total catch for 1918 was 151,431 seals valued at $863,552 and in 1919 the total catch was 81,293, valued at $278,145. This is a decided decrease from previous years. I am told that only ten ships prosecuted this fishery in 1919 and only thirteen in 1918. This is a great falling off, Mr. Speaker, from the years I remember, when some 25 steamers left the city of St. Johns and the town of Harbor Grace on the eastern coast on March 10 and prosecuted this great industry. I had the privilege of spending two springs at the* seal fisheries. I saw about 250,000 seals on ice. at one time-an experience which only few in this v'orld have had, and one which I would not have missed for a great deal. A little seal fishing is carried on in Canada, but not very much. However, for a number of years a steamer has been leaving Halifax every spring for the purpose of engaging in the seal fishing business. For several years the "Harlaw," owned by J. A. Farquhar, prosecuted the seal fishing industry. During the last few years, the same firm have sent out the steamers "Seal" and "Sable." Fishermen on the Magdalen Islands and around the Cape Breton shore sometimes get a few seals, but as I say, the industry is riot very largely carried on so far as Canada is concerned.
The Newfoundland fisheries, in addition to finding employment for the Newfoundland people and providing food for numerous foreign countries, is also a great benefit to Canada. It is almost impossible to realize what would happen the great Lunenburg fleet, which operates from my owm county, if it were not for the fact that during the summer months the Newfound-
[Stage Direction]
land harbours are teeming with bait fishes known as caplin and squid. Then, a great many Canadian schooners manned by Canadian seamen-who by the way are some of the best in the world-are chartered by Newfoundland merchants to proceed to different ports in Newfoundland and there load codfish for Europe, West Indies or Brazil. I might say that throughout the whole of the war, vessels belonging to Nova Scotia were chartered to Newfoundland merchants and took the Newfoundland fishery catch to Europe in spite of the submarine menace.
A number of vessels are sold each year to Newfoundland merchants. These vessels are sometimes four or five years old, and in other cases the Newfoundland merchants make contracts with New Brunswick or Nova Scotia builders for new vessels, so that the fisheries of Newfoundland are a great benefit to a part of the Canadian people.
The United States authorities do not issue annual statements of the quantity and value of fish taken all over the country. The Bureau of Fisheries at Washington, however, collects and publishes the annual statistics regarding the landings of fish at the chief Atlantic ports, at Seattle on the Pacific, and Alaska. The quantity of all kinds of fish landed at Boston and Gloucester in the years 1910, 1913, 1917, and 1918, was as follows:-
1910	
1,622,629	cwts.1913	*	
1,448,364	"1917	
1,567,850	"1918	
1,836,515	"From these figures it will be seen	that
the United States is not making as rapid progress on the Atlantic coast, notwithstanding its recent adoption of the steam trawlers, as several European countries. The Alaskan fisheries, however, are developing rapidly. In 1917 there were 21,491 persons employed in the Alaskan fisheries, and the value of the product when prepaired for market amounted to $51,466,980. That was a record up to that time. But in the year 1918 a much higher record was established, when 31,213 persons were employed and the value of the product amounted 'to $59,154,859, which was a sum nearly eight times the purchase price of the territory fifty years ago.
The country which has perhaps shown more rapid progress in the years immediately preceding the war than any American or European country is that of Japan. For a number of years the Government of

Japan has sent its scientists and experts to the different fish producing centres where a great deal of valuable information with regard to our fisheries has been gleaned. This information, which no doubt is afterwards returned to the Government, has been taken advantage of by this wideawake little nation across the Pacific. In the year 1907 only one steam -trawler was operated out of Japan. In the following year there were two at work, in the next year thirteen, which was followed by 23 in 1910, 76 in 1911 and 110 in 1912; which shows conclusively that Japan is in earnest with regard to the development of her fisheries. The value of Japanese fisheries ran from $33,177,750 in 1908, to $45,063,250 in 1912, and to $48,295,250 in 1913. The disturbing feature with regard to the situation is that dry codfish from Japan has now definitely entered into competition with the product of Canada and the United States. The Japanese have studied the Canadian and United States markets and have given closer attention to the best methods of curing and handling the fish than 10 p.m. we have. In 1918, 40,000 cwts. of Japanese fish were brought into San Fransisco, and up to the end of October of last year 20,000 cwts. had been brought into Seattle, whilst as many more were on the way. This competition is a very serious menace to the dry fish trade of this continent, by reason of the fact that the cost of production is so much less in Japan on account of smaller wages and lower standards of living.
The Fishing Gazette of New York, which line a wide circulation and which represents a large fishing clientele, sounds a warning note about Japan codfish entering the American market. In its issue of November 22, 1919, it prints full particulars and gives reasons why Americans should wake up and endeavour to combat Japanese aggression.
I think this shows .conclusively that if we are to compete in the markets of the world with the fisheries of other nations we have to pursue a much more progressive policy than we have in the past.
Cyrus Wesley Peck: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question before he proceeds with the question of the fisheries of Japan. Could he give us the number of other nationalities who operate the fisheries of Japan, in comparison with the number of Japanese who operate the fisheries of Canada? I am not saying this in any spirit of criticism.


William Duff: I have not those figures. I *would presume that the Japanese fishing vessels are operated by Japanese only.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Hear, hear.


William Duff: Is that right?


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Yes.


William Duff: I see that the hon. member refers only to the men who fish in Japanese boats. It is only Japanese that sail on Japanese fishing vessels.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like, for a few minutes, to speak of what has been done in other countries to help this important industry. With the exception of the help given to the herring fisheries in Great Britain over 100 years ago in the shape of bounties on properly cured herring and some assistance to outlying poor districts in the shape of loans to secure boats and the building of piers and shelters, the great fishing industry of Great Britain has grown up practically without direct Government assistance. The reason for this is found in the fact that the business has been a highly organized one for such a long time that private capital has always been freely procurable for putting into practice advanced ideas and for developing the industry generally. As an instance, all the harbour, docks, and fish markets in Great Britain have been built either by private companies, such as railway companies, with a view to reaping an increased traffic or by city or town corporations who levy dues on the landings for maintenance purposes.
Just before the outbreak of the war, however, fishing vessels grew so much in size and number that the Government, through what is known as development commissioners, gave grants of money in aid of harbour extension works, especially at the smaller ports. But be it said to the credit of the British people that the greater part of the cost in each case is borne by the town or community by borrowing at a low rate of interest from the Government. Since the war, the development commissioners are assisting demobilized fishermen with loans to secure new motor fishing boats and to instal motors in existing boats, and trawlers and drifters are being made available to demobilized fishermen or groups of fishermen on very easy terms of payment. This is one way in which Canadian fishermen or Canadian young men can be eneouragd to go into the fishing business, namely, by the Government helping them in the manner just mentioned; and as there are a number of small steamers owned by the Government now out of commission, it would be good business to endeavour to induce fishermen to take them over and operate them. Both in England and in Scotland attention has been given to the education of. fishermen for a number of years. At several centres and in many of the public schools, courses of instruction in navigation, net making and mending, cooking and coopering, have been provided. I was very much interested in a booklet which came into my hands a few days ago and which is worth putting on Hansard; but as it is rather long, I will quote only a few paragraphs from it. This pamphlet was issued by the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association of London, and the first thing it says is that the fishermen of Great Britain catch 7,500,000,000 fish dinners each year. The next heading is:
Why we demand a Ministry of Fisheries.
The Prime Minister's .pledge. The Prime Minister has stated:-	,
"We must see that the national resources are developed to the full, and that the State renders all the assistance in its power for the attainment of that oblect."
Then it goes on to say:
Our fisheries are to-day the greatest of our potential national resources. Very few people realise this. But it is true. One hundredweight of fish will give a meal to 150 people. Before the war British fishermen caught more than 24 million hundredweight of fish a year (3,600,000,000 square meals). We exported ten and a half million hundredweight, and imported about three million hundredweight. The country consumed 16,500,000 hundredweight. The fishing industry provided:
2,400 million meals for Britons.
1,500 million meals for foreigners.
During the war our 5.0,000 best fishermen and 3,000 best fishing steamers were busy hunting mines and submarines. The old men and the boys and the unfit men in old fishing boats contiued to fish. They caught on the average 8,000,000 cwt. a year. The German Navy sank 672 fishing vessels, and killed1 416 men while they were catching this food for us. Many hundreds were wounded and taken prisoner. They never shirked their job. They1 often, fought and defeated U-boats.
It goes on to say:
On. our fisheries we depend :
(a)	For a supply of the finest seamen in the world.
(b)	For a supply of the most wholesome form of flesh food. In fact:
(a)	Without the fishermen we should not have been able to defeat the German U-boat in four years. Because no other seamen are trained from boyhood to hunt their prey under water.
(b)	We must now either eat fish or become (very largely) vegetarian. Why? Because even before the war (since 1900, in fact) the population of the world has grown more quickly than the beef herds. The population of the eleven chief cattle raising countries had risen by 20 per cent before the war; their herds had decreased 4 per cent. This shortage of beef will be much more marked after the war. In fact.

the development of the fisheries is as important a factor in the food problem as the development of agriculture.
There are a number of other important statements in this booklet which was published by the British Admiralty in November shortly after the armistice was signed, but I shall content myself by just quoting the statement on the cover:
Our Debt to Fishermen.
In all their varied work round the coasts of the United Kingdom, in the North Atlantic, on the African Coast, in all parts of the Mediterranean, and in Egyptian waters, the auxiliary patrol service have shown an adaptability and readiness both for hazardous deeds, and for steady arduous effort.
That is what the Admiralty says of the work the fishermen did during the war not only in catchipg fish, but on the patrol boats that operated in the North Sea. The same thing might be said of our Canadian fishermen. While, of course, they did not have to undergo the same risks as the British fishermen, not for one minute did they stop their *work on account of the German submarines when they were on this side of the, Atlantic.
Now let us see for a few minutes what Continental Europe has been doing to cultivate this great industry. In Norway a number of schools have been established and subsidized by the Government at suitable localities on the coast, where fishermen are instructed in navigation chiefly. Some attention has also been given to the instruction .of cooks for the larger fishing boats; to instruction in the use of motors on fishing boats. Also in three special schools instruction has been given in fishery legislation, fishworking, and the natural history of important sea fishes. Funds have been created at various times for provision of loans to fishermen, to aid them in obtaining large vessels for deep-sea fishing, and installing motor engines in sail boats. The funds were pooled in 1907 and amounted to $275,000. There is also a separate fund amounting to $50,000 for the provision of decked boats in Finmarken, the most northerly and poorest province of Norway. The Norwegian fishery is largely an inshore one, in sheltered waters. For that reason loans were not. extensively used to provide large vessels and steamers for deep-sea fishing; but for the inshore fisheries loans have been very freely used in securing larger boats with oil engines.
The deep-sea fisheries of Germany are carried on by steam trawlers and herring luggers and steamers. The vessels belong to joint stock companies. No particular

state aid had been given to trawling com-_ panies, but up to 1910 an annual bounty of $1,500 was paid to herring companies on each vessel buil-t and sent to the herring fishery. After that year, state aid took the form of a guarantee of 5 per cent dividend on the capital invested in the companies. In 1911 the Imperial Government voted $175,000 for the development of the herring fishery and the other deep-sea and inshore fisheries. In that year also the city of Hamburg voted an annual sum of $75,000 for three years to provide loans, under easy conditions, for the inshore fishermen of the lower Elbe, to enable them to purchase boats and gear of an improved type. In the Baltic, state aid was given in the form of a loan without interest for an amount up to three-fourths of the cost of a boat and engine.
In the matter of education, fishery schools or classes have been established since 1895 by the German Sea Fisheries Society, acting for the Government, on the following general lines: (1) That a school he set up in every fishing centre so long as the cost of instruction compared with the number of pupils is not too high; (2) Instruction to be free and all costs paid by the society; (3) Instruction to be arranged to suit the particular industry of the locality. In 1910 there were 23 such schools or centres. The instruction given consisted (1) of navigation and seamanship; (2) construction and use of marine motors; (3) the natural history of important sea fishes; (4) instruction on improved models of boats and vessels, improved fishing gear, preservation and handling of fish on board and on land.
If our fisheries department at Ottawa had arranged some years ago to carry out just such a programme, this would have done away with the difficulty we have today of getting certificated masters and mates to man our ships; as, had these schools been established in every large fishing centre, the fishermen when at home during the ivinter could have attended them and passed the necessary examinations. Lectures are also given once or twice a week during suitable seasons on all matters connected with the fisheries. Another feature of the educational facilities provided in both Norway and Germany is the fishery museum established at various centres, in which are displayed models of boats and vessels, and specimens of nets, traps and other fishing gear used not only in Norway, but in other countries as well. There are also collections dealing with the treatment and curing of fish, including models of

fish and smoke houses and the utensils used in curing and canning various kinds ot fish. Since the war, the Germans are striving to supply themselves with a greater proportion of the fish they consume. To that end companies have been and are being formed which aim at building and outfitting additions to the trawling fleet that will bring it up to 400 vessels at once, while fishing harbours are being extended and new ones planned. At Cuxhaven $1,750,000 is being spent in extending the fishing port, Large sums are also being spent in the same way at Hamburg, Altona and Geestemunda.
It should be noted that schools and lectures, whilst they are doing good for navigation, are not bringing about the desired improvement in the treatment of dried fish in Norway. However, we on this side must admit that Norway fish are far better cured than some of the fish caught on the Atlantic coast and make serious competition for us in the foreign markets. I might say that the best fish we have in Canada is the Gaspe cod, cured along the St. Lawrence shore.
The Government of Norway are evidently not satisfied, and recently they appointed' a commission to investigate and prepare a plan and finance proposals for state aid for teaching fishermen and curers the best methods of curing split fish,, and also to inquire and. report whether a system of official inspection and marking of the fish would be desirable.
Of all the European countries France gives the. greatest amount of financial aid for the development of the sea fisheries. The amount spent by the Government in 191 i was $1,125,000, and by the way this amount should be carefully noted and compared with the sum spent annually in Canada, as well as the different manner in which the amount is spent.
Of that sum $980,000 was expended as bounties for the encouragement of the deep sea fisheries, $90,000 was for equipment and $66,000 was spent on the product itself. The balance amounting to $145,239 was expended on the coast fisheries, on superintendence research work and experiments. Regarding the bounty granted to the French fisheries, it is to be noted that the bounty is paid per quintal and amounts to 10 francs or $2 on each quintal caught. We, in Canada, are paying our Atlantic coast fishermen, both deep sea and inshore, the paltry sum of ,$160,000 and the amount does not really come out of the Canadian people, as it is the interest on five and half million dollars paid by the United States Government some years ago for certain privileges which the
British Government on behalf of Canada gave them.
As a result of the aid which is given the French fleet it is fitted out and sent across the Atlantic and fishes on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and the fishing banks off the island, of St. Pierre on Bank Quero and the Middle Ground. This French fleet has increased from 178 vessels in 1905 to 254 vessels in 1912, some of them being steam trawlers. A new policy has been adopted by the French Government lately, and as they cannot build sufficient ships themselves they have placed contracts in a number of shipyards in the. county of Lunenburg and in Queen's and Shelburne for the building of large numbers of wooden fishing vessels of 400 tons which will be used to prosecute the fisheries on the ' Grand Banks and will be manned by French fishermen. These ships come across the Atlantic in April and return in October and November. They have mother ships which lie at anchor in St. Pierre until the fishing vessels come in from the Banks to that port with their catches, which are put on board the mother ships, and when they are loaded they return to France, and the fishing vessels then again proceed to the fishing grounds. Their last trips are taken home in their own bottoms.
. Now let us take, for the sake of comparison and to show what Canada is doing for the fishermen, the amounts paid out in the last ten years by the Federal Government.
1910		
1911		
1912		
1913	 .	
1914		
1915		
1916		
1917		
1918		
These amounts are exclusive of $160,000 which was paid to the fishermen of the Atlantic coast each year as a bounty. That amount, as I said before is derived from the interest on the fisheries award which was made at the Halifax conference some years ago and was paid for certain fishing privileges. Consequently this cannot be put down as an expenditure of this Government towards fisheries.
Since 1909 what is known as the fisheries protection service, carried on by the larger vessels, such as the Constance, Canada, Curlew and Petrel has been charged to naval expenditure. Since 1911 what is known as the fisheries patrol service carried on by the smaller craft, mostly gasoline boats, has been charged to fisheries expen-

diture. There should be charged to the amounts which I have just given the sum of $200,000 per year which is an additional expenditure and does not appear in the statement. I have to say however, that a great deal of this money spent on small patrol boats is absolutely wasted and it would be good policy on the part of the department to sell the boats and pay off their crews.
For the sake of comparison I would like to give to the House the amounts voted by the Government for aid to agriculture, since 1910.
1910- 11	$ 988,507 75
1911-	12 ,	
1,220,099	911912-	13	
2,276,172	311913-	14	
2,*79,861	221914-	15	
3,190,465	271915-	16	
3,257,992	661916-	17	
3,522,859	821917-	18	
3,777,882	751918-	19	
3,975,919	53
I have no fault to find with this large expenditure; in fact as long as we are obtaining good results and the farmers are being helped and more people are being encouraged to settle on the land I would not object to further expenditure.
In past years large amounts have been spent on agriculture, and it is also a fact that the provincial governments are helping the farmers in a great many ways by establishing colleges and experimental farms and doing a great deal of work necessary to promote a knowledge of agriculture. This Government has also granted $5,000 under the land settlement scheme, to each soldier who is willing to settle on land with which to purchase his land and also $2,500 to purchase the materials necessary to enable him to go on the farm. In addition to that they have established credits' whereby the farmers are enabled to sell their products to foreign lands. If I am rightly informed credits to the amount of $300,000,000 have been established by this Government in aid of agriculture.
It will be remembered that a few years ago the Government voted a lump sum of $10,000,000 towards the encouragement , of agriculture and I might here say that a smaller special grant should have long ago been voted towards fisheries to help in their development. Most of the expenditure on fisheries at the present time is for salaries, patrol service and hatcheries and there is very little of this amount spent in either scientific or practical work for the encouragement and development of the great industry.

Sonie years ago the Government built two dogfish plants, one in the eastern end of the province of Nova Scotia at Canso and one at Cape Sable Island. Two or three years ago the Fisheries Department decided to abandon the work of exterminating the dogfish pest and sold the plants. This was a great mistake, as instead of selling the two plants already established, it should have been the policy of the Government to place additional plants along the coast of Nova Scotia and give a bounty to the fishermen to exterminate the pest which interfers with their work during the summer season. It is quite true that these plants did not pay their expenses or make any money for the Government, but it is not usual for plants' erected for the assistance of the people of the country in any industry to pay dividends or interest on the investment. But I will say this, that if these plants had been kept going for the last two or three years, owing to the prices which would have been received for the oil and the fertilizer, the Government would have received a handsome profit on the investment, and with proper business management, these plants could also have taken care of a large quantity of the offall and by-products of the fisheries.
In the March, 1919, issue of the Canadian Fishermen, several recommendations were put forward for the reconstruction and development of the Canadian fishing industry. Many of the recommendations will necessitate the expenditure of a good deal more money, and as money is a somewhat scarce .commodity and rather hard to secure in these days, the question should be first considered of turning the amount at present voted for fisheries administration to better use.
It should be clear to any one who intelligently studies the departmental blue books -and the more they are studied, the clearer becomes the fact-that a . large sum of money is positively wasted annually on the artificial propagation of fish. Especially so in view of the much larger sum spent in the shape of salaries and travelling expenses for the maintenance of an army of outside officers, numbering nearly 1,000, besides 40 permanent and 18 hired patrol boats with their crew's, whose main duty is police work,
i.	e., enforcing the observance of close seasons and other restrictive measures for the protection, chiefly, of the very kinds of fish that are artificially propagated at such enormous expense in our numerous hatcheries-. Any sane man is bound to conclude, if he looks at the thing below the surface,

that either the enormous expenditure on fish protection, or that on fish breeding, should be largely reduced. There is neither room nor necessity for both expenditures on a large scale at the same time. With such a huge output of fish fry from the hatcheries, the protection afforded by close seasons, and the elaborate system of licensing and controlling in vogue, one would naturally expect our fisheries to have been showing, years ago, a very greatly increased annual production. But what has actually occurred? The lobster fishery we know is barely holding its own, notwithstanding the output of hundreds of millions of fry from the hatcheries annually, especially in the last ten years; and now all the lobster hatcheries have been closed up as useless.
The Fraser river as a producer of salmon on the Pacific is played out, notwithstanding artificial propagation of millions of fry annually, mainly as a result of over-fishing by Americans at sea and in Puget Sound, and can never be restored except by the proper regulation of the means of capture and the season for fishing in salt *water on both sides of the international line. The artificial propagation of a species of fish like the Pacific salmon, which has to be maintained in such enormous numbers to keep the canning industry going, as a means of restoring this fishery, is about as futile as pouring a bucket of water into the Pacific ocean with a view' to swelling it a little.
A glance at page 102 of the Census of Industry, Part 3, Fisheries Statistics for 1917, shows clearly that the. total quantity of salmon canned in British Columbia from year to year is being maintained by the very kinds, such as pinks and chums, that are propogated artifically in very small quantities; while the sockeye, the kind that is produced in the hatcheries in enormous quantities, has been decreasing.
Leaving out the Fraser river altogether, and taking the figures for the rivers in the north, that are far removed from the destructive operations of American trap fishermen, we find convincing proof for the statement just made. The pack of the various kinds in the different districts was as follows for the years named:


SALMON PACK-NORTHERN RIVERS OP BRITISH COLUMBIA.
[Stage Direction]
Naas river.
190S	1912	1917cases.	cases.	cases.Sockeyes	
27,584	36,037	22,188Pinks	
6,612	12,476	44,568Chums	
3,245	24,938Skeen a river.	1908	1912	1917cases.	cases.	cases.Sockeyes.. Pinks.. .. Chums.. .	. . .. 139,846 . . . . 45,404	92,498 97,588 504	65,760 148,312 21,516River Inlet.	Sockeyes.. Pinks.. .. Chums. . .	.. .. 64,652 .. . . 479	112,8S4 8,809 3,845	61,195 S,065 16,101Outlying Districts.	Sockeyes.. Pinks.. . . Chums. . .	.. .. 48,367 .. .. 23,538	79,464 128,296 37,734	32,902 112,209 112,364
The figures which I have given prove beyond question that the pinks and chums which were propagated in small quantities increased much more rapidly than the the sockeye salmon.
Now take the' case of Atlantic salmon-
Cyrus Wesley Peck: Do I understand from the hon. gentleman's argument that pinks and chums were not propagated in hatcheries but that they increased more rapidly than the sockeyes and the cohoes that are propagated in hatcheries?
Mr. DUFF; The chums and pinks were propagated in small quantities and the sockeyes in large quantities. The pinks and chums increased very much more rapidly, or more of them were caught, than were caught of sockeyes. . The catch of sockeyes decreased and the catch of pinks and chums increased.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Do I understand the hon. gentleman's argument to be that the hatcheries were not beneficial?


William Duff: Yes, that is what I am trying to prove. Take the case of Atlantic salmon, of which also millions have been propagated annually for very many years, from ten regular hatcheries and six subsidiary ones. This fishery is scarcely holding its own as may be seen from the following figures which show the annual catch on the whole Atlantic coast, from 1913 to 1917:
Atlantic salmon fishing catch.
1913		 40,237 cwts.
1914	
38,202	"1915	
39,805	"1916	41,SOI	"1917	
39,865	"
The aatch for 1918 is believed to have been very considerably less than for 1917, while that for 1919 was practically a failure.
Compare this with the salmon fisheries of Scotland, for example, the perpetuation



of which has depended altogether on restrictive measures as to fishing periods and the strict enforcement of such. In round figures, the blue books show that the weight of salmon carried by rail and steamboat in Scotland, the produce of Scottish salmon fisheries, prior to the war, was 40,000 cwts. annually. There are only two small private hatcheries for salmon in the whole of Scotland. Both are maintained by the proprietors of the rivers on which they are located, with a view to increasing the salmon supply therein. Neither of these rivers, however, has showrr any better results than those that have been without hatcheries. In fact I believe one of the two hatcheries was closed recently. The superintendent of Scottish salmon fisheries, who is an expert in his line, said in 1916: "We in this country do not rely on artificial hatcheries for the upkeep of the stock of salmon. We have magnificent natural spawning grounds in our Scottish rivers and we prefer to rely upon the process of nature for the replenishment of the stock."
The point is this: The few comparatively small Scottish rivers, without the aid of hatcheries, maintain a yearly production of salmon rather greater than that of the whole Atlantic coast . of Canada from the Bay of Fundy to the Labrador, with its many huge natural salmon rivers into which are dumped annually the output of no less than sixteen hatcheries.
What of the Great Lakes? Eight hatcheries in the province of Ontario have been turning out many millions of whitefish ami pickerel fry annually for a number of years.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Is the hon. gentleman comparing the propagation of whitefish in Canada with the propagation of salmon in Scotland?


William Duff: No I have been comparing the propagation of Atlantic salmon with the propagation of salmon in Scotland.
Now for a few minutes let us consider the following figures which show the quantity of fry liberated in the lakes from Lake Superior to Lake Ontario since 1911.
Whitefish Fry.
1911		 146,200,000
1912		 64,0-00,0-0*0
1913	 140,000,0-00
1914		 175,490,00-0
1915		 281,62-0,0-00
1916		 178,288,000
Here let me give the House the quantity of these fish taken from those lakes annually since 1912.
Whitefish.	Pickerel.	Herring.Cwts.	Cwts.	Cwts.1912	. . . 58,897	26,656	170,6771913	. . . 52,263	26,564	130,7181914	. .. 57,964	39,173	91,4741915	. . . 67,100	26,718	[DOT] 115,7151916	. . . 60,711	20,029	106,8721917	. . . 49,498	19,569	201,801The	great increase	in herring	in 1917,
could not have been due to artificial propagation, because 1916 was the first year in which the fry of such fish -were liberated and they would not have reached a catch-able size in the following summer. The increase is attributable rather to the fact that this fish is more abundant than the others and that the high prices of 1917 impelled the fishermen to make greater efforts at catching and landing them.
Further comment as to the uselessness of fish hatcheries from a commercial standpoint is unnecessary; all the figures bearing on the matter proclaim it loudly. These are facts that cause thinking men to marvel greatly at the stupidity of permitting in a comparatively new country with a sparse population, and with what are practically
 ,
Pickerel Fry. Herring Fry.
56,549,500		
42,00-0,000		
4 0,0 0-0,0-0-0		
54,000,0-00		
95,550,000		
12S,833,000	39,585,0-00
virgin fisheries in lakes and rivers of huge dimensions, the expenditure of so much money on the artificial propagation of fish for so long, without question. Even casual observers, however, are now beginning -to doubt the wisdom of spending large sums on this service.	-[DOT]
In the United States artificial propagation of fish has been conducted on a great scale for many years. Yet Canada relatively has been doing far more than the United States in this line. In 1913 Canada had 61 main and subsidiary hatcheries, while the United States had not any more. But, as the United States authorities do not regularly collect statistics as to the catches of the various kinds of fish throughout the country, they cannot determine the results of their fish cultural work. As proof of this, let me quote the Commissioner of Fisheries at Washington, who, in a recent report, says:
The Bureau has given greater attention to the collection of fishery statistics which afford the only reliable basis for determining the condition of the fisheries, and indicating the need for and results of fish cultural work.
Even in the United States, however, where fish culture has been looked upon as a kind [DOT]of fetish, its value is now being questioned.

In the report of the Bureau of Fisheries for 1916 the following occurs:
In some sections an almost idolatrous faith in the efficiency of artificial culture of fish for replenishing the ravages of man and animals is manifested, and nothing has done more harm than the prevalence of such an idea. While it is an exceedingly difficult thing to prove, the consensus of opinion is that artificial culture does considerable good, yet the very fact that this cannot be conclusively proven ought to be a warning not to put blind faith in it. The best way in which to conserve the fisheries of the coast is by enacting and enforcing laws, making a close season, under which a certain proportion of the salmon runs will be enabled to reach the spawning beds. If this is done there can be no question of the perpetuation of the industry.
This good advice from Washington, Sir, should be followed by our officials.
The report of the Bureau of Fisheries for 1919 intimates that lobster hatching in the United States has practically been abandoned.
The great development of the fisheries of Norway is sometimes quoted as an example to this country, but the Norwegians place no reliance on artificial propagation of fish and do not waste money on it. One small hatchery, and no more, has been in existence at Flodevig since 1882 for hatching and distributing cod along the nearby coast. It is supported in part only by government funds. Its practical usefulness was so frequently called in question owing to the difficulty of proving any beneficial effects from it, that a commission was appointed in 1910 to investigate and report as to whether it should be continued. The commission consisted of scientists, a majority of whom, largely from a scientific view point, recommended its continuance. No one, however, believes it is of any benefit to the fisheries, and no doubt if practical men had been on the commission they would have recommended its abandonment.
The sum spent for the protection of the fisheries in Canada, in the shape of salaries to fishery officers and the maintenance of patrol boats is a huge one. According to the blue books it amounted to over $400,000 in 1913. That, for negative work, is surely much too much. But when to that large sum is added $400,000 more for artificial fish breeding in that year, without the slightest visible sign of the supplies being increased thereby, the thing to any one capable of understanding the 'figures dealing therewith assumes something of the character of a scandal. Perhaps no one in particular is to blame for this condition. It has evidently grown up under the system of administration past and present, which has blundered along guided by impracticable theorists. If 54|
the bull were now taken by the horns, so to speak, and the artificial propagation of fish and police work reduced, to their fitting place in the scheme of reconstruction, hundreds of thousands of dollars would be available for more useful' and necessary work without Parliament being asked for an increased vote.
Amongst more useful work might be classed the maintenance of a completely equipped steamer, like the "Michael Sars" of Norway, for scientific investigation of all kinds at sea bearing on the fisheries; also the establishment of what may be called fishery museums or schools at centres on both coasts and inland, in which models of all modern fishing crafts and appliances used throughout the fishing world would be on view, together with models of modern fish-curing, smoking, and canning establishments and the implements used therein. To such museums or schools fishermen and those directly concerned might be taken periodically to listen to lectures on and explanations of the various exhibits, by duly qualified experts, and to witness practical demonstrations in fish-curing and barrel making.
Money would be well spent in periodically sending a duly qualified expert or experts to cured-fish consuming centres abroad^ to study their desires and report to the trade. The money spent in the shape of bounties, amounting annually to $160,000, should be increased. Under the present system of distribution, the owner of a boat under 13 ft. keel gets $1; a boat fisherman gets about $4; owners of vessels of from 10 to 80 tons get $1 per ton, and those of vessels over 80 tons get $80 and vessel fishermen about $6.50. The aggregate sum paid is large, but the amount in each case so small as to make the avowed intention of the Act, namely " to encourage the development of the sea fisheries and the building of fishing vessels," a huge joke. How far, for instance, would an $80 bounty, which is the limit, go on a vessel costing say $30,000? A decent sum would help shipbuilding as well as fisheries. How much encouragement for the building of bigger and better crafts is therein the payment of $10 or $20 to the owners of small vessels of 10 to 20 tons, of which there are a great many on all parts of the coast? The other payments to boat owners and to vessel and boat fishermen are simply doles and can not be looked upon as encouraging the development of the fisheries.
Then money should be spent on improving the quality and consequently the value of all cured fish, by setting up a standard

of quality and paying a substantial bounty on all fish and packages found after proper inspection, up to that standard. No amount of lecturing and demonstrating could compare with this as a means of encouraging and developing our fisheries.
It is not for lack of money being spent by the Canadian Government on Canadian fisheries that they are not progressing as they should. It is rather due to the money being wrongly expended. The total expenditure on fisheries services in Canada in the year 1913 (all such expenditures were of course more or less curtailed during the war years) amounted to $1,229,518, including the bounty. Now, we have seen that the expenditure of France, which spends more on its fisheries than any other European country; amounted in the year 1911, to not more than $1,125,000. But, whereas Canada on the one hand spent over $800,000 of the total on superintendence, policing and fish breeding, and only $160,000 on bounties, France on the other hand, spent $980,000 on bounties for the encouragement of its deep sea fisheries and only $ 145)000 on superintendence, research work and experiments. These comparisons are very striking and should lead to a call for radical and sweeping changes in Canada.
There is not much hope for real practical assistance being given, however, as long as the administration of the fisheries services of Canada remain as at present, both inside and outside, almost entirely with a few notable exceptions in the hands of men who may be good clerks, but are, through lack of a working acquaintance with the industry, incapable of sizing up its l'eal needs or of directing any practical efforts towards its development.
The further development of our fisheries is dependent upon several things:
1.	An increased demand for fish at home.
2.	An increased demand for our cured fish abroad.
3.	Increased production. -
4.	Utilization of all by-products.
5.	A fisheries department, manned by practical business men, and scientific experts.
6.	Sufficient moneys to carry on necessary development.
The first can be brought about only by supplying the consuming public with real fresh fish in the shortest possible time after it is taken from the water.* The quality of such fish would be their own best advertisement and would very quickly lead to greater consumption. No amount of lecturing nor of newspaper or other advertising will induce people to continue the use of fish or

to increase their purchasing when as at present, they frequently find them so long out of the water as to fill the house with an offensive odour when being cooked. This was made clear in the evidence of inland dealers at the inquiry in 1916, as to the spread in prices. In Ontario the chief demand is for lake fish, because if its much fresher condition when offered for sale.
Sea fish can never be delivered in prime condition in the interior markets of Canada until a refrigerator or chilled car is made available on express trains, for all sizes of shipments; not once a week or three times a week, but every day of the week. The trade is not of sufficient volume at present to warrant the provision of such a daily car at a rate that would make it possible for shippers to make full use of its without assistance. But if adequate financial aid were provided by the Government for the operation of a daily refrigerator express car service, concurrently with a publicity campaign, the business would very quickly grow large enough to justify special express facilities without governmental aid. Until some such plan is adopted I have not much hope of seeing a great expansion of our fresh and semi-fresh fish traffic. It will, of course, be more expensive than the method of subsidizing fish shipments hitherto in force, but the importance of the industry and the results that are bound to follow are sufficient justification for any increased expenditure for a limited period.
The second is, perhaps of more importance than the first, for this reason: that the export trade in cured fish brings money out of the pocket of the foreigner and puts it into that of the Canadian, whereas the home trade in fresh fish largely consists of a transference of money from the pocket of one Canadian into that of another Canadian. Like the first, the second can only be secured by improving the quality of the product. Especially is this so in view oi the efforts of other countries to increase their output of cod and other salt fish to markets which are common to all fish-producing countries.
Efforts to persuade fishermen and curers by mere lectures or by written articles are not sufficient to bring the required improvement. That method is too slow. While waiting the results from such efforts we may wake some day soon to the fact that our competitors, by giving more attention to this quesiton of quality, have ousted us from the very markets we hitherto had looked upon as peculiarly ours. Such action as will be more quickly effective is therefore necessary. Here again the Government

should come to the rescue with financial assistance for a time.
A standard should be established for all cured fish, and after adequate inspection. If necessary the Government should appoint cullers in all the principal buying sections of the country and pay them so much per quintal for culling fish of different qualities. There should also be paid on each of the various units of quality which conform to the fixed standard a sum sufficient to encourage fishermen and eurers to turn out standard products. After a few years of such encouragement, with rigid inspection, followed by instruction where necessary, our salt fish producers would undoubtedly find themselves in a position to meet all competition unaided.
With an increasing demand for fish at home and abroad would come a demand for increased production. To meet such a demand individual fishermen or groups oi fishermen should be encouraged and assisted ' financially in securing such crafts as may be deemed most suitable. This is no more than the governments of other countries have been and are doing to advance their fisheries. To this end a fund should be created from which loans-not gifts-at low rates of interest could be made to approved persons or groups of persons to enable them to buy or build approved fishing crafts of all sizes.
While this suggestion is applicable in some measure to the Pacific coast, it applies mainly to the Atlantic where a much greater number of people are engaged and a much smaller sum is earned by their labour, which is performed under more severe conditions. The salmon fishery has been pretty well exploited and developed on the Pacific, and now that the salmon canning monopoly in the shape of protecting canners by limiting the number of cannery licenses has been ended recently, the provision of loans to white fishermen who are British subjects to enable them to secure boats for the halibut fishery-fully half the quantity of halibut landed at Prince Rupert is landed by American vessels-and the salmon fishery is perhaps the most effective way in which to help forward the Pacific fisheries. The increased production is bound to follow if the fishermen are encouraged to prosecute the industry. For the large fleet of trawlers which operate from Lunenburg county and proceed to the different banks where they fish from March to October, one or more hospital ships should be provided, so that fishermen will know that if they get sick they can be properly looked after.
Then to encourage men to engage in this industry, a scheme of state insurance, both life and accident, should be inaugurated. It would not cost a great deal of money to insure the fishermen during each season for an amount from $1,000 to $5,000, so that in [DOT] case any of them lose their lives during the voyage their families would be looked after. If you will look into the statistics you will find that although their calling is a very hazardous one, yet the fatalities are a small percentage of the number of. men engaged in the industry.
I also think that some state provision either of insurance or otherwise, should be-made for men who get hurt and also for those who, after serving a certain number of years have to give up fishing, either on account of ill health or old age.
Bait freezers should be established at not' only different parts of the Nova Scotia coast,, say at Lunenburg, North Sydney and northern Cape Breton or Prince Edward Island, but also at three or four important places in Newfoundland, as during certain seasons of the year bait is scarce and our vessels have to lay sometimes from one to four weeks waiting for bait. If these freezers were established and bait put in them from the previous season the fishing fleet would not be delayed and consequently would catch a great deal more fish. Last year, notwithstanding the handicap under which the fishermfen laboured, the fleet caught some 30,000,000 pounds of fish. Had they been able to get bait, and get it without waiting for it, they would have caught at least fifty per cent more than they did.
The fishermen should also be encouraged by having a lower tariff on all they eat and wear in their homes, and what they use either in the building or outfitting of small boats or large vessels should come into the country free of duty. They have to go into the open market to sell their product and take what they can get for it, and to properly encourage them they should be allowed to purchase anything they require without the barrier of a protective tariff.
The by-products of the fish should be taken care of. Plants should be erected to take care of the heads, guts, skins and other offal of the fishes. This would serve a twofold purpose, as fertilizer for the farms could be made from the bones and offal, oil would be extracted from the livers of the fish, and glue made from the skins. The Government would therefore kill two birds with one stone.
We also need in this country a new fisheries organization. The present department

'at Ottawa is ashamed to be known as the Fisheries Department, as a few years ago they changed the name of that department from "Marine and Fisheries" to "Marine and Naval Affairs." Why this was done passes all understanding, as the fisheries is of sufficient importance to be designated by the proper title. Looking over the Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day, I notice a resolution under the name of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. This resolution states that it is necessary to amend a certain part of the Canada Shipping Act relating to the inspection of hulls, boilers and machinery of vessels. It is quite right that that resolution should be under the name of the Minister of Marine, but I cannot see what the Fisheries Department has to do with the inspection of boilers. Immediately below that resolution there is another standing in the name of the Minister of the Naval Service, and having to do with a proposed amendment to the Fish Inspection Act regarding pickled herring, ale-wives, and mackerel. Now, I do not know whether they are going to supply pickled herring, ale-wives and mackerel to the Canadian Navy, but it certainly seems ridiculous for a resolution of that kind to be in the name of the Minister of the Naval Service.
What we want is a new lock, stock and barrel in thit department, with practical men in e1 arge, and until we get this we cannot expect very much to be done to encourage or oromote this great industry.
Some money should be spent to enour'.gf the immigration of fishermen to this country. I think I am safe in saying that I could pick from the Lunenburg fishing fleet at least one thousand men who are capable of taking charge of fishing vessels, although at the present time they are fishing in dories from other vessels, but I feel quite confident that if the Government would encourage the immigration of capable fishermen to this country these men would be able to get vessels of their own, which would greatly enlarge the present fishing fleet. If the Government would provide the men, I feel quite confident that the people of Nova Scotia, especially the people of my own county, would see that vessels aTe built and the fleet enlarged.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that my remarks will not fall upon barren ground, but that the Government will take steps to encourage the proper development of this great industry. The men who are prosecuting it at the present time are not only the salt of the earth, but they are the salts of the sea. Their calling is an arduous one; they risk

their lives every hour of the day and every day of the year; they are brave and daring and are not daunted either by the winds or the waves or by storms or fogs. Such men as these who go down to the sea in ships and do business on the great waters should receive every consideration and every encouragement from the Government of this country.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Mr. Speaker, While I do not agree with a great many of the conclusions of the member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) I think that we owe him a great deal for introducing this question into the House and that we must, respect his great grasp of the' fishery situation. When I have occasion again to speak on this subject, I purpose proving that the minister who is at the head of the Fisheries Department (Mr. Ballantyne) is doing a great deal, in our part of the country at least, to develop the very principles for which my hon. friend stands. My hon. friend speaks of the Atlantic fisheries; 1 speak of the Pacific fisheries, and I will say this, that of all the Ministers of Fisheries we have had there ha.s been no other minister who has at all approached the Minister of Fisheries of this Government in regard to his policy in developing the fisheries of British Columbia. I came from a fishing country, namely, the province of New Brunswick, and I live in a fishing country, in northern British Columbia, one of the greatest fisheries in the world, and I certainly look on fish as one of the most delicious products. The whole question in regard to its production and also in regard to it from an appetising standpoint, is very interesting. At this hour of the night, however, I do not think that our hardworking members of Parliament who labour for the very large sum of $2,500 a year, should be delayed in order to discuss this subject.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend should move the adjournment of the debate. .


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I am going to do that in two or three minutes. I hope this debate will be resumed at an early date. If it is not, I mean to take up the subject, which is very controversial and bitter in British Columbia, of the destruction of the cannery monopoly. I have taken <a part in that question and I am deeply interested in it. I wish to prove, in my humble way, to the Parliament. of this country that the minister has proved himself to be the strongest minister we have, had in regard to that question and that he has not hesi-

tated to play the part of a strong and disinterested man in destroying the cannery monopoly. I see some of my hon. friends opposite smile, and, I presume, in derision, because they were the people who introduced this cannery monopoly which has been the cause of so much trouble in our province.
I want to speak of the question of the returned soldier. I have been an advocate of the policy that the Government should assist in establishing the returned soldier in the fishing business. I can say honestly that I think ithe minister and his officials are quite in sympathy with that policy, and I commend that to' the consideration of the House. If you can re-establish men in farming, while I realize that you cannot re-establish them in every walk in life, there is one business in which you can re-establish them, and that is the fishing business. Therefore, I hope this debate will be resumed at an early date, and if it is not, I purpose taking up the whole question of the salmon fisheries of British Columbia in a most interesting and entertaining manner. I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Tuesday, March 30, 1920.